ALAKH PRAKASH Vs. RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is defendant in suit in question has challenged the order dated 29.8.2003 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Civil Revision No. 9 of 2003, Alakh Prakash v. Ram Kumar and others, whereby he has affirmed judgment and order dated 21.4.2003 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalaun at Orai in Original Suit No. 170 of 1996, Ram Kumar v. Alakh Prakash and others, thereby the amendment sought in his written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. was rejected. Thus the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below are under challenge in the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs -respondents filed Suit No. 170 of 1996 for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29.6.1995 against the defendant -petitioner with the allegations that the petitioner was agreed to sell Plot Khasra No. 63 area 3.662 hectares situated in village Nada, Pargana Orai, District Jalaun for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and executed a registered agreement for sale of plot in question in favour of plaintiff -respondents on 29.6.1995. The respondents paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ - to the petitioner as earnest money and the rest amount, as per agreement, would be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. According to the terms of agreement the period for execution of sale deed was for two years. The respondents asked the petitioner to execute the sale deed in their favour as per agreement for sale, but the petitioner postponed the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. Consequently, the respondents also served a registered notice upon the petitioner, but in spite of service of registered notice, the petitioner did not execute any sale deed in their favour in accordance with the agreement for sale. Therefore, the aforesaid suit for specific performance of agreement for sale was instituted against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner filed his written statement in the aforesaid suit, wherein he admitted the execution of agreement for sale in respect of the plot in dispute for Rs. 3 lakhs in favour of plaintiff -respondents and the receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/ - as earnest money. He alleged in his written statement that though the agreement for sale was executed on 29.6.1995, but his intention was not to execute the sale deed. It was further alleged in his written statement that on the same day i.e., 29.6.1995 a deed was executed by the plaintiffs -respondents in favour of the petitioner -defendant stipulating therein that if the petitioner pay the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/ -, the respondents will not get the sale deed executed in their favour and assured to get the deed signed by other respondents, but the other respondents did not sign the deed. The petitioner was ready to pay Rs. 1,50,000/ - in terms of the deed dates 29.6.1995, but the respondents refused to accept the said amount on one pretext or the other. The respondents were not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed as per terms of the agreement for sale and they never asked the petitioner to execute the sale deed in their favour during the period of two years fixed for execution of the sale deed. The respondents themselves committed breach of the terms of agreement for sale, hence the agreement for sale has ceased to exist and it cannot be enforced. The suit is also barred by section 168A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.

(3.) AFFIDAVITS have been exchanged between the parties and the case is ripped for final disposal, therefore, with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally.