NEHA ARYA Vs. VEENA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN view of the fact that a new counsel appears for the appellant the earlier counsel Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Advocate stands discharged.

(2.) THIS appeal came up for the first time on 17.2.2012 when in the facts of the present case interim orders were not prayed for. The order dated 17.2.2012 also records that husband of the appellant is also an Advocate who is present in Court. Trial Court records were summoned by special messenger and the case was listed for arguments on 15.3.2012. On 15.3.2012 after some arguments, it was said that there is a possibility of settlement, and therefore, an adjournment was prayed. Order dated 15.3.2012 however makes it clear that in case there is no compromise, the appeal will be argued on the next date of hearing and no adjournment shall be granted.

(3.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for specific performance relying on the agreement to sell/ Memorandum of Understanding dated 5.12.2008 with respect to the suit property and under which the suit property was agreed to be sold for a consideration of RS.10,00,000/- of which a sum of RS.7,50,000/-(i.e.75% of the price) was paid on the date of entering into the agreement to sell. THE balance amount of RS.2,50,000/- was payable at the time of execution of the sale documents. It was also agreed that the appellant/defendant would hand over physical vacant possession of the suit property within one week of signing of the agreement. On entering into the agreement to sell dated 5.12.2008, the original title documents of the suit property were delivered to the respondent/plaintiff. THE respondent/plaintiff pleaded that the appellant/defendant in spite of requests, avoided to execute the sale It was pleaded that a bank draft for a sum of RS.2,50,000/- was documents. prepared in the name of the appellant/defendant on 11.8.2009 , and the respondent/plaintiff wrote a letter to the appellant/defendant to accept the demand draft by a registered post dated 13.8.2009. THE husband of the appellant/defendant and who is an Advocate, as already stated above, gave a telephonic call to the husband of the respondent/plaintiff and agreed to meet the respondent/plaintiff in the office of the sub-Registrar on 20.8.2009 at 10.00 A.M. for execution of the sale documents, however, the appellant/defendant failed to appear resulting in filing of the subject suit for specific performance.