RAKESH KUMAR Vs. KALAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2004 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in suit No.642/2001, declining the relief of specific performance of an agreement dated 29.05.1986 of sale of immovable property as well as alternative relief claimed of recovery of damages of Rs.3,00,000/- but directing the respondents / defendants No.1 to 4 to refund to the appellant / plaintiff Rs.30,000/- paid as advance under the said Agreement to Sell together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

(2.) Notice of the appeal was issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Vide subsequent order dated 19.01.2005, the appeal was admitted for hearing. Vide order dated 04.03.2005, the respondents were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature, title and possession of the subject land subject to the appellant / plaintiff depositing the total consideration payable in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 29.05.1986 in this Court. In compliance therewith a sum of Rs.2,73,875/- was deposited. Vide order dated 26.07.2006, the interim order already granted was ordered to continue pending further orders. The respondents were served with the notice of the appeal but only the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 appeared and none appeared for the respondents/defendants No.5 to 7. The respondent No.2 was stated to have died and amended memo of parties was filed and his legal heirs were served. The counsel earlier appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 also stopped appearing after 26.07.2006 inspite of appeal being repeatedly listed for hearing. Vide order dated 31.07.2013, the appeal was directed to be listed with notation in the cause list of notice of default to the counsel for the respondents / defendants but inspite thereof, none appeared for the respondents / defendants. The counsel who had earlier appeared for the respondents No.1 to 4 upon being contacted telephonically stated that he is not the counsel in the matter. In the circumstances, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte and the counsel for the appellant / plaintiff was heard and the judgment reserved.

(3.) The Ld. ADJ has in the impugned judgment and decree: