PRAKASH CHAND RAWAT Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of arguments on 13.3.2012, no one appeared on behalf of respondent even though the case was taken up in the revised list. Accordingly only arguments of learned counsel for the appellant were heard. This is defendant's First Appeal From Order preferred from order dated 20.10.2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2003 which had been preferred by the plaintiff-respondent against decree dated 29.7.2002 passed in O.S. No. 503 of 1995. Through the impugned order matter has been remanded to the trial Court. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra through decree dated 29.7.2002 had rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) The plaint was filed on 16.8.1995 with the allegation that defendant had executed an agreement for sale of his agricultural land in favour of the plaintiff on 17.10.1988 for Rs. 60,000/-, after receiving Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money and that the sale-deed was to be executed within a period of two years from the date of execution of agreement for sale dated 17.10.1988 after taking requisite permission from the Ceiling Department and receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. It was further pleaded that plaintiff- defendant with the consent of plaintiff extended the period of execution of sale-deed till 14.9.1992, through the agreement 14.9.1990. Thereafter it was stated in paragraph 4 onward that plaintiff several times requested the defendant to execute the sale-deed and plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement for sale dated 17.10.1988 but the defendant continuously avoided the matter on one pretext or other and that defendant seemed to be in no need at all to execute the sale-deed and he dishonestly wanted to sell the property to some other person. Thereafter in para 7 of the plaint it was stated that notice was also given by the plaintiff to the defendant to come to the office of the Sub-Registrar to execute the sale-deed on 14.9.1992, however on that date defendant did not come. Thereafter another notice was sent on 19.4.1994. The main relief originally claimed in the plaint is as follows :

(3.) No prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 17.10.1988 had been made in the original plaint. Prayer No. 3 in the original plaint was general prayer to the effect that such other and further relief which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit' and proper be also granted in favour of the plaintiff.