JAVRILAL SHANTILAL KOTHARI Vs. GURUCHARANSINGH BISANSINGH BAGGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have impugned the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner, passed in Special Civil Suit No.27 of 2013, dtd. 7/1/2016 and judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.8 of 2016 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Amalner, dtd. 5/8/2019.

(2.) Both Courts denied the specific performance and held that the suit was time-barred. However, allowing the suit partly surprisingly, directed respondent no.1/vendor to refund the earnest amount with interest.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that both Courts did not consider the facts of the case. Both parties to the agreement were reciprocally accommodating to each other. The sale deed was to be executed after clearing the debts and encumbrance. The appellants and respondent No.1 were residing in one building. The appellants were tenants in the suit premises. The appellants possess the suit premises through a registered agreement to sell. Since the vendor had some difficulty, the appellants extended the time twice by executing separate agreements. However, in the last document extending the time to perform the part of the contract by the vendor, the deadline was 30/6/2008.