Delhi District Court
Hari Kishan Rastogi vs Ajit Singh on 29 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR MEENA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-10 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civ DJ No.609013/2016
CNR No.DLWT01-000192-2011
Hari Kishan Rastogi
S/o Sh. Tej Pal Rastogi,
R/o A-2/6, Prateep Apartments,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063 ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ajit Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ujagar Singh
R/o A-188, Sudershan Park,
New Delhi-110015 ....Defendant
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
Date of institution of case : 02.12.2011
Reserved for judgment : 21.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 29.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This court is rendering the present judgment to adjudicate the suit which was filed by Sh. Hari Kishan Rastogi (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') on 02.12.2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi (in Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 1 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:21 +0530 original jurisdiction) against Sh. Ajit Singh (hereinafter to be referred as 'defendant') for specific performance and permanent injunction; Subsequently, in view of Section 4 of Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act 2015 and vide notification no. 27187/DHC/Orgl. Dated 24.11.2015, the present matter was transferred to the Ld. District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari courts vide order dated 04.12.2015.
PLEADINGS OF PLAINTIFF
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant represented to him that he is the owner of the entire property bearing no. A-188, (Old No.13A, area admeasuring 50 sq. yards), (Old No.12-A - 150 sq. yards) total area measuring 200 sq. yards with roof/terrace rights situated at Sudershan Park, New Delhi-110015 (hereinafter referred as 'the suit property') and in order to meet out his legal needs and requirements, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,92,90,000/-. It is also pleaded that an agreement to sell and purchase was executed between the parties on 19.07.2011 (hereinafter referred as 'The agreement'). It is also stated in the plaint that plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash on 19.07.2011 itself and also made further payment of Rs.10,00,000/- each on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 respectively. It is also contended/pleaded that the entire transaction was to be completed on or before 18.11.2011 on receipt of entire balance sale consideration and in the month of September 2011, plaintiff informed defendant that he has made arrangements of entire balance sale consideration and requested him to fulfill his part of contract by executing title document coupled with delivery of vacant possession of the suit property; However, he failed to fulfill his Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 2 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:27 +0530 part of contract. It is also pleaded that plaintiff requested defendant on 05.09.2011 and again on 19.09.2011, however, defendant neglected/avoided the matter on one or other false pretext. As defendant was ignoring and/or not fulfilling his part of the contract/agreement, a legal notice dated 15.09.2011 was served upon defendant by plaintiff. It is also pleaded that on 06.10.2011, defendant came alongwith his son at the residence of plaintiff and asked him to reach office of Sub-Registrar on 07.10.2011 for completing the deal; Accordingly, plaintiff reached the office of Sub-
Registrar on 07.10.2011, however, defendant had not appeared. Thereafter, a telegram dated 11.10.2011 was sent to the defendant thereby intimating that entire balance amount of sale consideration is ready with plaintiff and defendant was intimated to come forward to execute sale document. It is also pleaded that on 17.10.2011, plaintiff personally met with defendant and requested him to complete the sale transaction of the said property and defendant falsely promised that he would reach office of Sub-Registrar on 18.10.2011 and in this context a telegram dated 17.10.2011 was also sent. Thereafter, plaintiff reached the office of Sub-Registrar on 18.10.2011 with two bank drafts for sum of Rs.72,00,000/-, however, defendant had not reached. It is also contended that on 22.10.2011 defendant with his son and unknown person came to the house of plaintiff and threatened him for which a police complaint was made. It is finally contended that as defendant has refused to fulfill his part of contract/agreement, the present suit is filed for the relief of specific performance and mandatory injunction.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT
3. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement, thereby Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 3 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:32 +0530 refuting all the allegations and it was categorically contended/pleaded that present suit has been filed on the basis of false and concocted facts. It is further contended by the defendant that plaintiff has suppressed the material facts to mislead the court and to get the relief for which he is not entitled. It is contended by the defendant that he agreed to sell suit property through agreement to sell dated 19.07.2011 for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,92,90,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff on 19.07.2011 as earnest money and remaining sum of Rs.1,82,90,000/- was supposed to be cleared by 18.10.2011. It is further contended that plaintiff failed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.1,82,90,000/- and had thus committed breach of agreement and accordingly not entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for. It is further contended that plaintiff had wrongly averred that he made a further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant. It is finally contended that it is the plaintiff who had committed breach of contract and the present suit filed by plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION
4. Plaintiff has filed the replication to written statement wherein he refuted the claim/pleadings of defendant and reaffirmed his pleadings as stated in the plaint.
ISSUES
5. After the completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 02.08.2013:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 4 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:38 +0530 Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 19th July, 2011? OPP
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff committed breach of the Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 19th July, 2011? OPD
(iii)Whether the Defendant has committed breach of the Agreement to sale and purchase dated 19 th July, 2011 in respect of the suit property? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has not paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as part payment in respect of the sale of the suit property to Defendant? OPP
(v) Whether the Plaintiff has filed this suit with suppression of material facts and false facts? OPD
(vi) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of his case, plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and through his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A, he relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Original Agreement to Sell & Purchase dated 19.07.2011 as Ex.P-1;
(ii) Office copy of legal notice dated 15.09.2011 as Ex.PW1/2;
(iii) Original postal receipts of registered AD receipt & courier receipt as Ex. PW1/3(colly.);
(iv) AD card as Ex.PW1/4;
(v) Receipt bearing no. 013764 dated 07.10.2011 as Ex.PW1/5;
(vi) True copy of telegram as Ex.PW1/6;
(vii) True copy of telegram dated 17.10.2011 as Ex.PW1/7;
(viii) Copy of demand drafts mentioned in affidavit Ex. PW1/A as Ex.PW1/8;Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 5 of 29 Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:44 +0530
(ix) True copy of receipt dated 18.10.2011 issued by office of Sub Registrar- II, Janakpuri, Delhi as Ex. PW1/10;
(x) Copy of police complaint dated 24.10.2011 as Ex.PW1/11 (colly) and
(xi) True typed copy of legal notice dated 09.11.2011 sent by the defendant as Ex.PW1/12.
PW-1 was cross examined, wherein he deposed in sink with the contents of his pleadings and asserted that present suit was filed on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.07.2011 and he was not only ready and willing to perform his part but also had capacity to honour the agreement.
Plaintiff also examined Sh. Hitesh Rastogi as PW-2, Sh. Jagjeet Singh as PW-3, Constable Vineet as PW-4, Sub Inspector Anoop Singh as PW-5 and Sh. Shivam Mishra as PW-6 to prove his case.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
7. In his defence, the defendant has only examined Sh. Syed Faisal Huda as DW-1, who was an expert witness/handwriting expert, to substantiate that the acknowledgment as well as signature which are at the back of Ex.PW1/A are nothing but forged and fabricated and neither written nor signed by the defendant. DW-1 was cross-examined by the plaintiff.
8. No evidence was adduced by plaintiff in rebuttal of evidence of defendant.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties at length.
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 6 of 29 Digitally signed by VINODVINOD KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:49 +0530 • Final arguments of plaintiff:
It is argued by or on behalf of plaintiff that the agreement was entered into between the parties, wherein defendant agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,92,90,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on 19.07.2011 itself and further a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each were paid at two occasions i.e. on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011. It is further submitted that to pay the remaining sum, he made a demand draft, however, defendant had not appeared before the office of Registrar on various dates and lastly, on 18.10.2011. It was finally submitted that plaintiff was not only ready and willing to honour his part of contract/agreement but also had capacity to honour the agreement. It was finally prayed that suit may be decreed in favour of plaintiff thereby granting relief of specific performance.
• Final arguments of defendant:
Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant that defendant agreed to sell suit property as his son got ill/suffered from cancer and money was required for the treatment of his son and accordingly, time was essence of agreement/contract. It is further submitted that the terms of agreement to sell were to be complied with by 18.10.2011, which plaintiff failed to comply and accordingly, there is a breach of agreement/contract on the part of plaintiff. It is further argued that except payment of Rs.10,00,000/- which was given on 19.07.2011, defendant had not received any sum from plaintiff. It is further submitted that averments regarding payment of further sum of Rs.20,00,000/- is nothing but false and misleading. It is Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 7 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:16:55 +0530 finally submitted that as plaintiff was neither willing nor had any capacity to honour the agreement, accordingly, suit is liable to be dismissed.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
10. After hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties and after going through the pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed & exhibited documents, record and issue wise finding given as under:
Findings on Issue no.1, 2 & 3 :
11. Issue no. 1, 2 & 3, i.e. (i) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 19 th July, 2011?, (ii) Whether the Plaintiff committed breach of the Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 19th July, 2011? and (iii)Whether the Defendant has committed breach of the Agreement to sale and purchase dated 19 th July, 2011 in respect of the suit property?, are being taken together for discussion and adjudication as these issues are inter connected and may conveniently and logically be decided with common findings.
12. Before delving into the factual description, it is apposite to briefly deal with legal principles/ingredients which are inevitable for deciding these issues/relief.
13. At the outset, the court deem it fit to discuss here the point, as to whether the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief or is a mandatory provision as made through amendment brought into the Specific Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 8 of 29 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:00 +0530 Relief Act 1963 (hereinafter be referred to as 'SRA') in the year 2018 (hereinafter be referred as 'the amendments').
14. It is pertinent to mention here that by way of amendment in SRA, the relief of specific performance remains no more discretionary; in other words, once, the concluded contract and the other ingredients are found to be established, the courts are bound to grant requisite relief. The main issue that is to be decided is that as to whether the amendments, as brought into SRA in the year 2018, are to be applied retrospectively or prospectively.
15. This point regarding applicability and scope of amendments have been taken into consideration and succinctly clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Katta Sujatha Reddy vs Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. & Ors., (2023) 1 SCC 355. The relevant paras i.e. paragraphs 48 to 51 are quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:
"...48. In any case, the amendment carried out in 2018 was enacted to further bolster adherence to the sanctity of contracts. This approach was radical and created new rights and obligations which did not exist prior to such an amendment. Section 10, after amendment, reads as under,
10. Specific performance in respect of contracts.--The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16.
49. This provision, which remained in the realm of the Courts' discretion, was converted into a mandatory provision, prescribing a power the Courts had to exercise when the ingredients were fulfilled. This was a significant step in the growth of commercial law as the sanctity of contracts was reinforced with parties having to comply with contracts and thereby reducing efficient breaches.
50. Under the pre amended Specific Relief Act, one of the major considerations for grant of specific performance was the adequacy of Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 9 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:09 +0530 damages under Section 14(1)(a). However, this consideration has now been completely done away with, in order to provide better compensation to the aggrieved party in the form of specific performance.
51. Having come to the conclusion that the 2018 amendment was not a mere procedural enactment, rather it had substantive principles built into its working, this Court cannot hold that such amendments would apply retrospectively..."
From the above quoted observations as passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, two aspects qua relief of specific performance has been clarified. Firstly, prior to the amendment this relief was just discretionary in nature, meaning thereby, the courts were having discretion to decide the relief of specific performance on the basis of equitable conditions, however, after the amendments, the relief of specific performance has been made/converted from discretionary relief/remedy into a mandatory one. In other words, after the amendments, if the specific pre-requisite and/or essential ingredient for specific performance are fulfilled/proved, the court is now obligated to grant the relief of specific performance.
Secondly, it has been clarified that applicability of these amendments in SRA, which were brought into effect in the year 2018, would be prospective in nature. It has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that amendments, as brought into SRA in 2018, were substantive in nature thereby affecting the legal rights and obligations of the parties and accordingly, same could not be applied retrospectively.
From the above exposition of law, it becomes amply clear that the amendments of 2018, as introduced to SRA, cannot/will not affect past or pending cases and as the present matter, which was already pending since year 2011, the legal regime as it existed prior to the amendment shall govern the case. In other words, the relief of specific performance has to be taken as Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 10 of 29 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:16 +0530 discretionary equitable remedy as existed through the pre-amended provision of SRA.
16. Having discussed the legal position to the effect that relief/remedy of specific performance has to be taken in accordance to the pre-amended SRA, it becomes inevitable to discuss here the conditions and legal principles, as provided under the unamended provisions of SRA. The relevant provisions/sections which are relevant to decide the issue at hand are being reproduced here as under:-
Section 10.Cases in which specific performance of contract enforceable Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the court, be enforced--
(a) when there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage caused by the non-performance of the act agreed to be done; or
(b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance would not afford adequate relief.
Explanation: Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall presume--
(i) that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money; and
(ii) that the breach of a contract to transfer movable property can be so relieved except in the following cases:
(a) where the property is not an ordinary article of commerce, or is of special value or interest to the plaintiff, or consists of goods which are not easily obtainable in the market;
(b) where the property is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff.
Section 14. Contracts not specifically enforceable (1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:--
(a) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief;
(b) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms;
(c) a contract which is in its nature determinable;
(d) a contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise.Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 11 of 29 Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:22 +0530 (2) Save as provided by the Arbitration Act, 1940, no contract to refer present or future differences to arbitration shall be specifically enforced;
but if any person who has made such a contract (other than an arbitration agreement to which the provisions of the said Act apply) and has refused to perform it, sues in respect of any subject which he has contracted to refer, the existence of such contract shall bar the suit. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1), the court may enforce specific performance in the following cases:--
(a) where the suit is for the enforcement of a contract,--
(i) to execute a mortgage or furnish any other security for securing the repayment of any loan which the borrower is not willing to repay at once:
PROVIDED that where only a part of the loan has been advanced the vendor is willing to advance the remaining part of the loan in terms of the contract; or
(ii) to take up and pay for any debentures of a company;
(b) where the suit is for,--
(i) the execution of a formal deed of partnership, the parties having commenced to carry on the business of the partnership; or
(ii) the purchase of a share of a partner in a firm;
(c) where the suit is for the enforcement of a contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any other work on land: PROVIDED that the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:--
(i) the building or other work is described in the contract in terms sufficiently precise to enable the court to determine the extract nature of the building or work;
(ii) the plaintiff has a substantial interest in the performance of the contract and the interest is of such a nature that compensation in money for non-performance of the contract is not an adequate relief; and
(iii) the defendant has, in pursuance of the contract, obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed.
Section 16. Personal bars to relief Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-
(a) who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wilfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of the relation intended to be established by the contract; or
(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms of the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 12 of 29 Digitally signed by VINODVINOD KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:27 +0530 Explanation : For the purpose of clause (c),
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff must aver performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction.
Section 20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance (1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal.
(2)The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance:--
(a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances under which the contract was entered into are such that the contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant; or
(b)where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve no such hardship on the plaintiff; or
(c) where the defendant entered into the contract under circumstances which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce specific performance.
Explanation1 : Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause
(a) or hardship within the meaning of clause (b). Explanation 2 : The question whether the performance of a contract would involve hardship on the defendant within the meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases where the hardship has resulted from any act of the plaintiff subsequent to the contract, be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract. (3)The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance.
(4)The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the party.
17. After discussing the settled legal principle to the effect that pre-
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 13 of 29VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:34 +0530 amended provisions of SRA will be applicable in the present suit and after discussing the legal provisions as enumerated in pre-amended SRA, the court deem it fit to mention here the essential ingredients/steps, which are inevitable for granting the relief of specific performance. To elucidate, the court deem it fit to quote here the observations as passed/made Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Kumar vs Prem Lata AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT
459. The relevant para is quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:
"...10 It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;
Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and Lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what grounds."
18. After going through the above mentioned observations as passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and after going through the basic principles and applicable statutory provisions, it can be deduced/crystallized that to prove the entitlement for grant of the discretionary and equitable relief of specific performance of contract, four ingredients/stages have to be cleared/proved.
(i) First and foremost, it has to be proved that there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of suit Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 14 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:42 +0530 property.
(ii) Secondly, it has to be proved that plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
(iii) Thirdly, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of contract.
(iv) Fourthly, the Court has to see as to whether it will be equitable to grant the relief to specific performance to plaintiff with respect to suit property.
19. As far as first ingredient/stage is concerned, it is an admitted fact through pleadings of both the parties that the agreement to sell dated 19.07.2011 was entered into between the parties for sale/purchase of suit property for a total sell consideration of Rs. 1,92,90,000/- ; it is also an admitted fact that a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was given by plaintiff in cash to defendant as earnest money.
20. The second and third ingredient are the main ingredient and as such are the crux of issue no. 1, 2 and 3.
Before delving upon the issue at hand i.e. issue no. 1 i.e. whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement to sell and purchase dated 19.07.2011, it is apposite to quote here the relevant observations as passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Umabai & Anr Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. Decided on 13.04.2025 AIRONLINE 2005 SC 350, Appeal (Civil) 2583 of 2005, wherein it was observed that readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff/purchaser has to be judged after taking into consideration the entirety of the pleadings as Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 15 of 29 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:48 +0530 well as the evidence which is brought on record. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
"...It is now well-settled that the conduct of the parties, with a view to arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff-Respondents were all along and still are ready and willing to perform their part of contract as is mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act must be determined having regard to the entire attending circumstances. A bare averment in the plaint or a statement made in the examination-in-chief would not suffice. The conduct of the plaintiff-Respondents must be judged having regard to the entirety of the pleadings as also the evidences brought on records..."
Similarly, it was also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pushparani S. Sundaram & Ors. Vs. Pauline Manomani James (Deceased) & Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 582, wherein it was specifically observed that inference of readiness and willingness has to be drawn by the conduct of plaintiff through totality of circumstances. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
"...Inference of readiness and willingness could be drawn by the conduct of the plaintiff, the circumstances in a particular case in other words to be gathered from the totality of circumstances... ...So far these being a plea that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is there in the pleading, we have no hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This requires not only such plea but also proof of the same. Now examining the first of the two circumstances, how could mere filing of this suit, after exemption was granted be a circumstance about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff. This at the most could be the desire of the plaintiff to have this property. It may be for such a desire this suit was filed raising such a plea. But Section 16(c) of the said Act makes it clear that mere plea is not sufficient, it has to be proved..."
It was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others [(1995) 5 SCC 115] that it is not just readiness and willingness but also the capacity to pay, which has to be proved to be entitled to get the equitable and discretionary relief of Specific performance. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 16 of 29VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:53 +0530 "...The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the Court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available..."
21. Having gone through the essential requirement as provided/ enumerated u/s 16 (c) of SRA and after going through the settled legal principles and relevant and important observations as made/propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court is proceeding further to decide, as to whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract through the factual position, as brought on record through the pleadings by both the parties and through the averments as made by witnesses in their respective deposition.
22. To depict his readiness and willingness, plaintiff deposed in his evidence that he had sent a legal notice dated 15.09.2011 Ex.PW1/2 (hereinafter referred as 'the legal notice'). Through the legal notice, the plaintiff allegedly specifically conveyed his desire to fulfill his part of contract by conveying/intimating that he had made arrangement of entire balance sale consideration. The service of legal notice Ex.PW1/2 has been refuted by defendant on two aspects, the first and foremost aspect which is contended by defendant is that no such legal notice has been sent by plaintiff and/or received by defendant. It is contended by the defendant that his residential address is the house which is situated at Mansarover Garden Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 17 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:17:58 +0530 having address as B-109, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi, whereas, the legal notice has been sent by plaintiff at the address of suit property. It is observed by the Court that admittedly this agreement to sell qua suit property had been executed at this/residential address i.e. address of Mansarover Garden only. The relevant para from the cross-examination of PW-1 is quoted here as under:
"...It is correct that the aforesaid payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made to the defendant on 19.07.2011 when the agreement to sell was signed. It is correct that the aforesaid agreement was signed at B-109, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. Vol. Again said I do not know the exact property number of Mansarover Garden. I do not know whether the property B-109, Mansarover Garden belongs to eldest son of defendant namely Sh. Charanjeet Singh. I alongwith defendant and one of my broker and the son of the defendant were present when the agreement to sell was signed on 19.07.2011...
...I met him 3-4 times. I cannot tell the date & month of the said 3-4 meetings. I met him at the residence of the defendant at Mansarover Garden and he has also visited my residence at Paschim Vihar, Delhi. I do not remember the date & month when defendant had come to my residence..."
Similar averment was made by PW-2 in his cross-examination which is quoted here as under:
"...On 20.07.2011, I had called Sh. Jagjit Singh on phone and decided a meeting point where he met me and from there, we both went to the house of defendant at Mansarover Garden..."
From the above quoted averments of PW-1 and PW-2, who are plaintiff and his son respectively, it had been crystallized that residential address of defendant was Mansarover Garden and not the address of suit property. So, service of this legal notice Ex.PW1/2 has been successfully refuted by defendant.
23. The second aspect which has been raised/contended by or on Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 18 of 29 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:03 +0530 behalf of defendant, is that the notice was sent just to create false ground to depict false/pretended willingness and readiness on the part of the plaintiff. It is observed by the Court that plaintiff in the legal notice i.e. Ex.PW1/2, in para 4, had categorically mentioned/stated that he had made arrangements for the payment of entire sale consideration, whereas, it is an admitted fact on the part of plaintiff that arrangement of funds was not ready in the month of September. The relevant para from the cross-examination of PW-1 is quoted here as under:
"...I had informed for the first time in September, 2011 to defendant my readiness about the payment of balance sale consideration. I do not remember the date of September, 2011. The said balance amount was not with me in September 2011 but it was to be managed from my family, relatives and friends..."
So, from the above-mentioned it has been crystallized that this legal notice has not been served upon defendant, as same was not sent at his residential address rather sent at the address of suit property. Secondly, the fund was admittedly not readily available with plaintiff in the month of September, when notice Ex.PW1/2 had been issued.
From the above-mentioned, it can be easily deduced that this notice Ex.PW1/2 merely depict the desire of plaintiff to acquire property but is not sufficient to prove the readiness and willingness, which is prerequisite of legal principles as enumerated u/s 16 (c) of SRA.
24. The plaintiff further produced exhibits telegrams i.e. Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7 to depict that he has duly conveyed his desire to fulfill his part of contract and readiness and willingness on his part. Needless to say, these telegrams has also been addressed with/sent to the address of suit property rather than residential address as observed above.
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 19 of 29 Digitally signedVINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:09 +0530
25. The plaintiff also had tendered and exhibited receipt regarding his visit to Sub-Registrar office as Ex. PW1/5 and Ex. PW1/10. The court is of the view that visit to Sub-Registrar office is usually made for a specific purpose i.e. for registration of duly completed sale deed/document. Though, the plaintiff has produced receipt yet, he failed to produce drafts of sale deed or the proof regarding purchase of stamp paper for the purpose of drafting/preparing sale deed and the proof regarding his capacity to clear the entire remaining sum qua the sale consideration. It was specifically contended by plaintiff in his cross-examined as PW-1 that he had admittedly not filed any draft of sale deed and the stamp paper for sale deed were not purchased by him on or before 18.10.2011. The relevant para is quoted here as under:
"...It is correct that I had not filed any draft sale deed in this Hon'ble Court. Vol. Though it was prepared. There was no oral discussion with the defendant prior to the preparation of the draft sale deed since it was last day of payment i.e. 18.10.2011 and therefore the draft ready with the deed writer was prepared. It is wrong to suggest that no such draft was prepared and that is why I have not filed it on court record. It is correct that no stamp paper for the sale deed was purchased by me on or before 18.10.20211..."
From the above quoted averment of plaintiff as PW-1, it has been crystallized that though, he might have visited the office of Sub-Registrar, yet, he went there unprepared. It appears that these visits have been made just to create false ground to create his willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract. It is again pertinent to mention here that first such visit as depicted through Ex.PW1/5, was made on 07.10.2011 that is too without preparing draft sale deed, without purchasing stamp paper and without having proof regarding payment of remaining sale consideration. It is also Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 20 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29
16:18:14 +0530
observed that second admitted visit was made on 18.10.2011 i.e. date by which entire settlement amount was to be cleared. It is observed that said visit was again without the draft sale deed, without purchase of stamp papers and without sufficient proof regarding payment of remaining sale consideration. It is observed that plaintiff filed photocopy of two demand drafts marked as Mark-A and Mark-B, however, same were not qua the entire remaining amount of sale consideration and same were drafted/prepared on 17.10.2011 and admittedly cancelled on next date i.e. 18.10.2011. The relevant averments of bank official as PW-6 is quoted here as under:
"...Q-1 Is it correct that on the date of preparing the DD of Rs.55 lakhs in the Avon Electrical Industries account, there was not enough balance to prepare the said DD?
A. The account in question was overdraft account and due amount is deducted from overdraft facility.
I cannot tell if the overdraft facility is provided by the Bank only for purchase of stock and inventory. (Vol.) The concerned person from the overdraft department can respond appropriately to the aforesaid question. It is correct that the aforesaid DD of Rs.55 lakhs was cancelled on 18.10.2011 as per the statement of account.
It is correct that the DD of Rs.72 lakhs was prepared on 17.10.2011 and was cancelled on 18.10.2011 as per the account statement Ex.PW-6/2. The account, from which DD of Rs72 lakhs was prepared, had the account balance of Rs.72,11,876.96 lakhs as shown in credit entry dated 17.10.2011 of Rs.33,70,000/-..."
It is also an admitted fact that time was essence and sale was to be concluded by 18.10.2011. The relevant para of cross-examination of PW-1 is quoted here as under:
"...It is correct that it was intended in the agreement to sell, Ex-P1 to conclude the sale in time bound manner on or before 18.10.2011..."
The relevant para from cross-examination of PW-3 is also quoted here as under in this context:
"...I am aware that defendant wanted to sell the suit property to arrange Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 21 of 29 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:19 +0530 money for the treatment of his son. It is correct that as per the agreement Ex.P-1, three month's time was given for execution of the agreement..."
It is also an admitted fact that remaining amount was not readily available with plaintiff. The relevant observations of PW-1 from his cross- examination is quoted here as under:
"...I wanted to make the balance payment under the agreement to sell through two demand drafts, cash and by cheque. The total amount to be paid by cash and cheque was Rs.35,90,000/-. I cannot say out of Rs.35,90,000/- what amount was with me to be paid in cash and by cheque. It is wrong to suggest that I was not having the aforesaid amount of Rs. 35,90,000/- with me at the relevant time. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 35,90,000/- was to be received by me from my family, relatives and friends. I do not want to disclose the names of said relatives and friends..."
From the above quoted averments of PW-1 and PW-3, it can be easily deduced that time was the essence and entire sum was to be cleared by 18.10.2011 and admittedly, the entire remaining amount towards sale consideration was not readily available even on 18.10.2011. It is also clear from the above quoted averments of PW-6 that two demand drafts were only prepared on 17.10.2011 and were cancelled on very next day i.e. 18.10.2011 itself. It is also crystallized that even this amount of demand draft and earnest money was not covering the entire sale consideration.
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove willingness and readiness on his part. Even the amount of sale consideration was not readily available as on the last date by which agreement to sell Ex.P1 was to be executed.
In view of the above-mentioned, issue no. 1 & 3 are decided against plaintiff and in favour of defendant. Similarly, issue no. 2 decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 22 of 29 Digitally signedVINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:26 +0530 Findings on Issue no. 4
26. As far as issue no. 4 i.e. (iv) whether the plaintiff has not paid a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs as part payment in respect of the sale of the suit property to the defendant? OPP, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is an admitted fact, as reflected from the pleadings as well as evidence of both the parties, that agreement to sell qua suit property was entered into between the parties on 19.07.2011 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,92,90,000/- and plaintiff made a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash on
19.07.2011 itself as an earnest money. The agreement to sell Ex.P1 as well as receiving of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash on 19.07.2011 itself, has been duly admitted by the defendant. So, as far as this issue is concerned the payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, as earnest money, is not in dispute. The whole consideration qua this issue lies to the point that plaintiff alleged that he made a further payment of Rs. 10 lakhs each on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 (hereinafter referred as 'these payments') respectively to defendant. However, both these payments have been categorically refuted by the defendant. To decide the present issue qua these two payments, the court has to take into consideration the pleadings as averred by both the parties and the evidence of plaintiff as PW-1 and his son as PW-2 and evidence of DW-1, who is a handwriting expert.
27. It is observed by the Court that plaintiff as PW-1 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he along with defendant, son of defendant and his broker were present on 19.07.2011 i.e. the date of agreement to sell Ex.P1 and he made payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as earnest money on 19.07.2011 itself. The relevant para is quoted here as under.
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 23 of 29 Digitally signedVINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:32 +0530 "...It is correct that the aforesaid payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made to the defendant on 19.07.2011 when the agreement to sell was signed. It is correct that the aforesaid agreement was signed at B-109, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi. Vol. Again said I do not know the exact property number of Mansarover Garden. I do not know whether the property B-109, Mansarover Garden belongs to eldest son of defendant namely Sh. Charanjeet Singh. I alongwith defendant and one of my broker and the son of the defendant were present when the agreement to sell was signed on 19.07.2011..."
Though the factum of payment of Rs. 10 lakhs as earnest money on 19.07.2011 had not been refuted yet this para has been quoted to depict that only plaintiff with his broker was present alongwith defendant and his son. This para is also quoted as plaintiff admittedly had not made these further payments personally. The relevant averments of PW-1 in his cross- examination in this context are quoted here as under.
"...It is correct that on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 I had not made any payment to the defendant. Vol. I had made the above payment through my son Mr. Hitesh Kumar Rustagi to the defendant. It is correct that no payments as mentioned in my affidavit on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 were made in my presence. It is correct that no separate receipts were issued for the aforesaid payments. I cannot tell the person who has made the endorsement made on the back of first page of the agreement to sell showing payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011. It might be correct that the aforesaid writing at point A at the back of first page of the agreement was not written by the defendant..."
From the above quoted paragraphs from the cross-examination of PW-1, it has been duly proved that plaintiff was neither present at the time of these payments nor any separate receipt were issued with respect to these payments nor he is aware as to who has written these endorsements qua these payments. It is observed by the Court that it has been contended by plaintiff during his evidence that these payments were made by his son on his behalf. His son had appeared as PW-2 in the present matter. It is observed by the Court that it is an admitted fact on behalf of plaintiff as well as his son that at the time of entering into agreement to sell Ex.P1, son of Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 24 of 29 Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:39 +0530 plaintiff was not present. The relevant para from cross-examination of PW-2 is quoted here as under.
"...It is correct that I was not personally present at the time of execution of the agreement, Ex.P-1...
...I have not met the defendant personally except on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011...
...On 20.07.2011, I had called Sh. Jagjit Singh on phone and decided a meeting point where he met me and from there, we both went to the house of defendant at Mansarover Garden..."
So, very strangely, son of plaintiff had not seen defendant in person before 20.07.2011 and he made payment to defendant in the absence of his father, who is plaintiff in the present matter. It is further observed that PW-2 in his cross-examination averred that he is not aware as to who has written the acknowledgment at the back of agreement to sell Ex.P1. The relevant para is quoted here as under.
"...It is wrong to suggest that the writing of the acknowledgment on the back of the first page of Ex.P-1 at point A and signatures at point B and C were not of defendant. (Vol. He signed in my presence). However, I do not know who has written the acknowledgment part at serial number 1 & 2 on the said agreement."
From the above quoted averments of PW-2, it is brought on record that the son of plaintiff allegedly made payments of substantial sum of Rs. 10 lakhs each on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 respectively, in the absence of his father, in whose favour, agreement to sell Ex.P1 was executed and that is too, when he never met defendant prior to such dates and that is too, without taking any separate receipts qua these payments. The Court found it very strange that PW-2 is not even aware as to who has written the endorsements at the back side of agreement to sell. He only contended that these endorsements were signed by defendant. Defendant has categorically refuted his signatures and onus to prove the fact that these signatures were of defendant, was on plaintiff. However, no handwriting expert has been Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 25 of 29 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29
16:18:48
+0530
called by plaintiff. Defendant brought handwriting expert as DW-1 and he opined that signatures on agreement to sell Ex.P1 and signatures on the endorsements at the back side of agreement to sell at Point B and C are not of one and same person. During cross-examination the focus is merely on possibility rather than on facts. Even by bare perusal and matching the signatures on agreement to sell Ex.P1 and signatures as mentioned at back side of agreement to sell at point B and C, it can be easily opined that they are not of one and same person. From the above-mentioned, it can be easily deduced that averments/pleadings regarding further payment of Rs. 10 lakhs each on 20.07.2011 and 09.08.2011 respectively, are nothing but bald averments. From the above-mentioned it is clear that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the factum of payment of Rs. 20 lakhs.
In view of the above-mentioned issue no. 4 is partly decreed in favour of plaintiff as payment of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash as earnest money on 19.07.2011 is an admitted one, however, subsequent payment of Rs. 20 lakhs has not been proved. It is again clarified that these payments i.e. subsequent payment of Rs.20 lakhs has not been proved.
Findings on Issue No. 5:
28. As far as this issue i.e. (v) Whether the Plaintiff has filed this suit with suppression of material facts and false facts? OPD, is concerned, it is observed that this issue has neither been pressed for nor any evidence has been adduce to support same.
In view of the above-mentioned, the issue no.5 is decided against the defendant.
Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 26 of 29VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:53 +0530 Findings qua alternative relief of refund of earnest money.
29. At the outset, it is apposite to mention here that the plaintiff has not sought any relief/prayer qua alternative relief of refund of earnest money. Before proceeding further to decide as to whether the alternative relief of refund of earnest money can be granted without seeking/praying for an alternative prayer for refund of earnest money, the court deem it fit to mention here the legal principle/provisions as enumerated under Section 22 of SRA. Section 22 of SRA reads as under:
"22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for--
(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or
(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused.
(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed:
PROVIDED that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.
(3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub- section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under section 21."
After going through the provision as enumerated under Section 22 (2) of SRA, it is clear that alternative relief including dept of refund of earnest money cannot be granted suo moto as inclusion of the prayer clause remains a sine qua non for grant of such a relief.
At the cost of repetition, the court deem it fit to mention here that no prayer qua alternative relief for refund of earnest money had been sought Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 27 of 29 VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:18:59 +0530 by or on behalf of plaintiff till the stage of final argument. In other words, the prayer qua alternative relief for refund of earnest money has neither been mentioned/included in the plaint nor it has been sought to be added by way of amendment till the stage of pronouncement of judgment.
The court deem it fit to quote here the relevant observations as made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Desh Raj Vs. Rohtash Singh (2023) 3 SCC 714, wherein it was categorically stated that the prayer for seeking alternative relief must be specifically sought either in the original plaint or by way of an amendment. The relevant para is quoted here as under:-
"...35. On a plain reading of the above-reproduced provision, we have no reason to doubt that the plaintiff in his suit for specific performance of a contact is not only entitled to seek specific performance of the contract for the transfer of immovable property but he can also seek alternative relief(s) including the refund of any earnest money, provided that such a relief has been specifically incorporated in the plaint. The court, however, has been vested with wide judicial discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint even at a later stage of the proceedings and seek the alternative relief of refund of the earnest money. The litmus test appears to be that unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him. The prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of decree of refund of earnest money.
36. Applying these principles to the facts of the case in hand, we find that the respondent has neither prayed for the relief of refund of earnest money in the original plaint nor he sought any amendment at a subsequent stage. In the absence of such a prayer, it is difficult to accept that the courts would suo motu grant the refund of earnest money irrespective of the fact as to whether Section 22(2) of the SRA Act is to be construed directory or mandatory in nature..."
Juxtaposing the above quoted settled legal principle to the facts of the case, it can be easily deduced that plaintiff has neither specifically sought the prayer for alternative relief for refund of earnest money in the original plaint nor same had been added by way of amendment; Accordingly, plaintiff cannot be said to be entitled for such relief. Moreover, Civ No.609013/2016 Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 28 of 29 Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2025.08.29 16:19:05 +0530 through finding on issue no. 1, 2 & 3, it is clear that breach of contract/agreement has been done on the part of plaintiff, accordingly, the earnest money stand forfeited as same has been specifically mentioned in the agreement itself.
RELIEF
30. On the basis of the finding of the issue no. 1, 2, 3 & 4, this Court is adjudicating the suit with the findings that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance or injunction; Accordingly, suit of plaintiff is dismissed.
31. No order as to costs as the parties shall bear their own respective costs of the suit.
32. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present judicial file and have not been pressed for by the parties are also disposed of as dismissed as not pressed.
33. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after the payment of deficient court fees (if any).
34. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by
VINOD VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR MEENA
Announced in the open Court
Date: 2025.08.29
MEENA 16:19:11 +0530
today on 29th August, 2025 (Vinod Kumar Meena)
District Judge-10
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
29.08.2025
Civ No.609013/2016
Hari Kishan Rastogi Vs. Ajit Singh Page 29 of 29