SHAHJAD DAGAR Vs. NARESH GUJRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was the plaintiff could not succeed even at an ex-parte trial in obtaining a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell, Ex. P-1. Unfortunately even the earnest money paid in sum of Rs. 50,000/-has not been refunded to the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent i. e. the defendant has chosen to abstain even in the instant appeal in spite of being served by publication. Thus, we proceed ex-parte against the respondent.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant urges that the learned trial judge has returned findings based on illogical presumption requiring corrective action to be taken in appeal. But, counsel concedes that in view of the fact that the agreement to sell, Ex. P-1, is dated 20. 12. 1990 and that his client sought decree for specific performance on 16. 12. 1993, after serving a notice of demand on 26. 11. 1993, Ex. P-2, specific performance of the agreement to sell may not be granted to his client. Counsel prays that at least the earnest money paid be ordered to be returned with reasonable interest.