SHRI VIKAS GUPTA Vs. SH. ROHIT SIKRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 1338/2010 (u/o IX, R.4 CPC) and I.A. No. 1342/2010 (u/s 5 of the Limitation Act), both by the plaintiff

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance with consequential relief of injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that vide agreement to sell dated 02.12.2007 between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property, i.e., part of First Floor measuring 748 sq. ft. bearing No. E -36, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi, for a total consideration of Rs. 32 lac, out of which plaintiff paid to the defendant a part payment/earnest money of Rs. 3 lac on 08.12.2007 and the defendant further received Rs. 4 lac on 22.12.2007. As per the plaintiff, the said payments were duly acknowledged by the defendant. The contention of the defendant in the written statement is that the plaintiff failed to pay balance amount till the last date of agreement being 31.03.2008 nor has the plaintiff filed any proof thereof. Therefore, the plaintiff is guilty of breach of contract. The plaintiff also failed to reach the concerned Sub -Registrar at the appropriate time. The plaintiff also did not pay the stamp duty. Therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the suit.

(3.) LATER on, the plaintiff filed the present applications for restoration of the suit as well as for condonation of delay of more nine months in filing the application for restoration. In support of the applications, Mr Vikas Nagpal, Advocate, filed the affidavit explaining his inability to appear. The detail of the same is given paras 6 and 7 which read as under: