S K GUPTA Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this review petition the Petitioners who were the Appellants in FAO (OS) 110/2000 seek review of the judgment dated 19th February, 2010 delivered by this Court dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants.

(2.) Brief facts relevant to the filing of the present review petition are that the Respondent Kuldeep Singh filed a suit for specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell dated 29th/30th July, 1980 in respect of property No.9, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, agreed to be sold for '14 lakhs, whereunder he paid 10% of the consideration, that is, '1.40 lakhs at the time of Agreement to Sell and sought specific performance of the said agreement showing willingness to pay the balance consideration. The suit filed on 17th February, 1982 was decreed on 30th April, 1984 in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC as despite repeated opportunities the Review Petitioners/Appellants/Defendants in the suit failed to file their written statements.

(3.) Against the decree dated 30th April, 1984 the Petitioners/Appellants filed an appeal which was dismissed as time barred on the 29th March, 1985. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was also filed before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 15th July, 1985. After the decree was passed the Petitioners/Appellants filed an application being IA No. 4274/1999 under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short "the Act") seeking rescission of the Agreement to Sell dated 29th/30th July, 1980 and the decree dated 30th April, 1984. By the application under Section 28 of the Act filed on 24th April, 1999, rescission of the contract was sought on, inter alia, the following grounds; that the balance amount of '12.60 lakhs was not paid or deposited within the reasonable time, so the Plaintiff has lost its right for specific performance; since the passing of the decree the land rates in Delhi had increased and thus, it was inequitable, unjust and unconscionable if the Defendants/Judgment Debtors were required to pay the unearned increase in land price; the Defendants were willing to refund the amount of '1.40 lakhs with an interest @15% p.a. and reasonable compensation and it was just, proper and equitable to rescind the agreement and the decree.