SABYASACHI GHOSH Vs. PUSHPARANI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder in a suit for specific performance is the petitioner of the present revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed the suit being Title Suit No. 134 of 2002 for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated December 20, 1999. The First Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat, Dist. 24 Parganas (North) by the ex parte judgment and decree dated February 19, 2008 allowed the said suit by directing the defendant/opposite party to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner in respect of the suit property within two months from the date of the decree on receipt of the balance consideration money.

(2.) The judgment-debtor/opposite party on August 27, 2015 filed an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for rescission of the aforesaid agreement for sale on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the condition of the decree by not paying the balance consideration price within period of two months stipulated under the said decree.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge by the Order No. 64 dated August 30, 2016 allowed the said application thereby rescinded the said agreement for sale subject to the condition that the opposite party shall refund the earnest money of Rs. 60,000/- to the petitioner with fifteen per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of receipt of the said amount till the date of payment, within three months from the date of the said order and in default the order of rescission of the said agreement for sale has been directed to be vacated and the decree of specific performance has been directed to be restored. The said order is under challenge in C.O. No. 4271 of 2016. Consequent to the rescission of the said agreement for sale the learned Trial Judge by the Order No. 30 dated August 30, 2016 dismissed the application for restoration of the execution case filed by the petitioner holding that the same has become infructuous. The said order is under challenge in CO. 454 of 2017.