Delhi High Court - Orders
Bhagwan Singh Dabas And Anr vs Smt Chander Kala on 10 May, 2023
$~23.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 374/2023
BHAGWAN SINGH DABAS AND ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocate.
versus
SMT CHANDER KALA ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
ORDER
% 10.05.2023 The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
CM APPL. 23980/2023 (Exemption) Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
RFA 374/2023 & CM APPL. 23979/2023 (stay)
1. The appellants (original plaintiffs) in the present appeal are challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge-03, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS DJ No. 829 of 2017 titled „Sh. Bhagwan Singh Dabas & Anr. v. Smt. Chander Kala‟.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit for specific performance and mandatory and permanent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:15.05.2023 15:55:49 injunction filed by the appellants.
3. The brief facts are that the respondent (original defendant) is the absolute owner/bhumidar in possession of the suit property. An Agreement to Sell dated 30.06.2017 was entered between the appellants and the respondent for the sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.34,89,907/-. The appellants have paid Rs. 1,61,000/- towards the earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the Sale Deed i.e., on or before 01.12.2017. Suddenly, the appellants received a legal notice dated 20.07.2017 whereby the respondent stated that as per the request of the appellants, the bayana money of Rs.1,25,000/- has been deposited into the account of the appellants and that the sale transaction shall be treated as cancelled. The appellants immediately approached the respondent and clarified that they never opted for the cancellation of the sale transaction. Despite repeated requests, the respondent failed to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, the appellants filed the suit for specific performance, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents. Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment, was pleased to dismiss the suit.
4. Mr. Ashutosh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment itself records that the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had sufficient means to execute the Sale Deed. Inspite of such finding, the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the learned Trial Court further recorded that the respondent unilaterally repudiated the contract entered into between the parties and despite the said findings, learned Trial Court erroneously Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:15.05.2023 15:55:49 dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellants on the ground that the respondent had no intention to sell the suit property and had returned the bayana money just after 20 days of the receipt of the said amount and hence, the Court cannot compel her to sell the suit property.
5. This matter requires consideration.
6. On the appellants taking steps, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes including electronic mode and dasti, returnable on 08.11.2023.
7. In the meanwhile, Registry is directed to requisition the Trial Court record in digitized form.
GAURANG KANTH, J MAY 10, 2023 N3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:15.05.2023 15:55:49