LATA AMBWANI Vs. SANGEETA KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Lata Ambwani (herein after describe as the plaintiff) has filed the present suit for specific. performance of the contract for damages and injunction

(2.) The facts alleged are that plaintiff agreed to purchase the second floor of house No. L-68-B, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms, bath room, drawing dining, store, kitchen from the defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.16.00 lakhs. The plaintiff paid the earnest money of Rs.3.00 lakhs in cash and Rs.1.00 lakh by cheque dated 15/4/1996. The defendant had acknowledged the receipt of the money of 15/4/1996 and agreed to complete the sale and execute the sale deed within 32 days after obtaining the necessary permission from the concerned authorities. The defendant also agreed to pay all the dues of the concerned authorities and assured the plaintiff that the property is free from encumbrances and agreed that if she failed to complete the sale deed within 31 days plaintiff would be entitled to get the same done. After execution of the above document the plaintiff approached the defendant with the balance money and requested her to complete the sale and execute the sale deed. The defendant entered into another agreement to sell of 17/9/1996 in which he admitted that due to unavoidable reasons, he could not complete the sale. Now, she agreed to execute the sale deed of 1/11/1996 and further to pay damages at Rs.5,000.00 per day for the delay. The sale deed was still not executed. The plaintiff issued a legal notice calling upon her to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff asserts that she is ready and milling to execute the sale deed and was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. On these basic facts the present suit as such has been filed.

(3.) Notice of the civil suit had been issued to the defendant and appearance has been put on behalf of the defendant by the learned counsel. On 17/10/1997 it was adjourned to 19/1/1998 and then to 16/3/1998 but the defendant or her counsel did not appear. The position was the same again on 15/9/1993 and 25/1/1999.