Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Batra vs Vinod Aggarwal on 14 August, 2012
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 3575 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : August 14, 2012
Rajesh Batra
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Vinod Aggarwal
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
Present : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 6.6.2004 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial Court. However, he was held entitled to recover the amount of ` 4,00,000/- from the defendant-respondent which was double the amount earlier paid to the respondent at the time of execution of the agreement dated 6.6.2004. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellant filed the first appeal. The respondent also filed his cross- objections insofar as granting of money decree by the trial Court. The first appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the lower Regular Second Appeal No. 3575 of 2012 (O&M) -2- appellate Court whereas the cross-objections submitted by the respondent were partly allowed by reducing the amount of money decree from ` 4,00,000/- to ` 2,00,000/-. The appellant is now before this Court in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Having heard counsel for the appellant, I find that the agreement dated 6.6.20004 has been rightly found to be not legal. Further, the suit filed by the appellant was bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. Similarly, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Court below in passing a money decree in favour of the appellant and granting an amount of ` 2,00,000/-. The argument of the appellant that he was entitled to an amount of ` 4,00,000/- cannot be entertained as the penalty clause had not come in force before the agreement was cancelled by the defendants.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that the appellant shall be entitled to further interest on the decretal amount @ 4% per annum till actual payment as had been directed by the trial Court.
( T.P.S. MANN )
August 14, 2012 JUDGE
satish