MUNNA LAL SINHA Vs. SUGREEV RAM SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 25/7/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, North Bastar Kanker in Civil Suit No.1A of 2012, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance of the agreement.

(2.) According to the pleadings of the Appellant/plaintiff, Respondent 1/ defendant 1 received an amount of Rs.1,46,000.00 as a loan on 3/5/2010 for his personal use and made an agreement (Ex.P1) to refund the said amount of loan upto 31/5/2010. In the said agreement, it has also been mentioned that if the amount is not refunded within the stipulated period mentioned in the agreement then he will sell the land which is situated on the way of Chhapar Bhumi Haradula and according to the Patwari record the said land bears Khasra No.11/38 area 0.41 RA. Respondent 1/defendant 1 completely failed to refund the above loan amount and did not execute the sale-deed in favour of the Appellant/plaintiff within the stipulated period. The plaintiff contacted defendant 1 many times for execution of the sale-deed as well as for getting the refund of the given amount, but, defendant 1 failed to do so. The plaintiff also sent legal notices twice, but, despite that defendant 1 did not reply the notices and neither he refunded the loan amount nor did he execute the sale-deed. Thus, the civil suit was filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, despite service of notice, defendant 1 remained absent and the Trial Court proceeded ex parte. After recording of the evidence of the plaintiff, the Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dtd. 25/7/2012, dismissed the suit on the ground that in the agreement to sell description of the land is not mentioned and, therefore, the agreement is not executable. Hence, this appeal.