GURJIT SINGH Vs. BANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the plaintiff respondent for specific performance of the agreement dated, October 20, 1987 regarding the sale of 24 kanals of land, was decreed by the trial Court. The defendant's appeal was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. The defendant has, thus, approached this Court through the present second appeal.

(2.) Mr. Rajinder Chhibber, learned counsel for the appellant has made a twofold submission. Firstly, the learned counsel has contended that the plaint filed by the respondent being not in conformity with Forms 47 and 48 of the 1st Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit could not have been decreed. Secondly, it has been - averred that the suit for specific performance of the agreement was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant's claim has been controverted by Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent. A few facts may be briefly noticed.

(3.) The appellant had agreed to sell 24 Kanals of land to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 31,000/ - per acre. The parties executed a written agreement on October 20, 1987. The appellant was paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/. by way of advance. According to the terms of the agreement, the sale deed had to be executed by June 15, 1988. On April 7, 1988, the respondent filed a suit for an injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the land to any one else. On June 15, 1988 which was the date stipulated for the execution of the sale deed, the respondent appeared before the Sub Registrar with an application indicating that the appellant was not interested in executing the sale deed as the price of land had risen. He in his application before the Sub Registrar stated that he was present with the amount of sale consideration and the other expenses required for registration of the sale deed. He had further stated that he has been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the next day viz. June 16, 1988, the respondent sent a notice to the appellant reiterating the above noted position. In this notice, it was specifically mentioned that the respondent had waited for the appellant at the Tehsil Complex, Mansa on June 15, 1988 from 8.00 A.M. to 5.30 P.M. It was also stated that he was "ready, with cash etc.". The fact that the appellant had not reached the office of the Sub Registrar was also mentioned in the notice. Through this notice, the respondent had given another opportunity to the appellant for complying with the terms of the agreement dated October 20, 1987. When nothing was done, he instituted the suit for specific performance on September 9, 1988. Simultaneously, the suit for the issue of an injunction, which had been filed on April 7, 1988 was withdrawn.