VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Vs. GEETA KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is allowed inasmuch as it is stated that the appeal against the order dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed by this Court on 2.8.2017 in FAO No. 328/2017. Accordingly, this application is allowed and appellant is allowed to argue the first appeal on merits. CM stands disposed of.

(2.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 3.12.2016 whereby the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.25 lacs along with interest pre-suit at 9 per annum simple and pendente lite and future interest at 6 per annum simple.

(3.) The subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for recovery of Rs.34,56,250/-by pleading that the appellant/defendant had approached the respondent/plaintiff for selling the property of the appellant/defendant bearing old Municipal No. 55 and new no. 53, on a plot of 200 sq. yds, plot no.5, Village Sandhora Kalan, abadi known as Sri Nagar Colony, Delhi. As per the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff pleaded that she agreed to purchase the entire second floor of the property without roof rights with one fourth share in the parking for a sale consideration of Rs.1,05,00,000/-. An agreement to sell and purchase was entered into on 6.2.2013 and the respondent/plaintiff paid the appellant/defendant a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- of which Rs.17,00,000/- was paid in cash and Rs.8,00,000/- lacs was paid by cheque bearing no. 367647 dated 10.2.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The balance sale consideration was payable on completion of the entire building from ground floor to third floor with parking. It is pleaded in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff came to know that the suit property was not built on the plot of 200 sq. yds. but constructed on 150 sq. yds. only and that appellant/defendant had failed to execute the sale deed of the suit property and had in fact not completed the construction. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff claimed return of the amount paid of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest totaling to Rs.34,56,250/-.