RAM NIWAS Vs. DIDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, affirming the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21.05.2009 passed by the learned trial Court whereby suit filed by the respondents seeking specific performance of agreement dated 25.01.2007 has been allowed.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondents sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.01.2007 qua the double storey shop-cum-house No. 21 (plot No. 16), detailed in the plaint and in the alternative, prayed for recovery of Rs. 17,90,000.00 along with interest @ 24% per annum from 25.01.2007 till recovery of the amount. The plea of the respondents is that the appellant vide writing dated 25.01.2007 on the letter pad of his firm namely M/s. Kirori Mal Om Pal, Commission Agents in the presence of Gulzar Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, resident of Village Ballu, Gurbax Singh son of Raghbir Singh, resident of village Amupur had agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000.00 out of which Rs. 12,90,000.00 towards the outstanding amount for the sale proceeds of crop sold by the respondents/plaintiffs to the appellant/defendant were adjusted and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000.00 was paid by the respondents to the appellant in cash at the time of writing dated 25.01.2007 (hand written of the appellant). It was further averred that the appellant delivered possession of the suit property after getting a gift deed executed in his favour by other legal heirs, in the month of April, 2007 in the presence of said Gulzar Singh and Gurbax Singh. In July, 2007, when the respondents requested the appellant to get the sale deed executed, he started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and rather filed a suit for permanent injunction just to grab the amount of Rs. 17,90,000.00.

(3.) The suit filed by the respondents was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Karnal. Ram Niwas-appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC')for setting aside the judgment and decree and the same did not find favour with the Court and was disallowed. The appellant did not prefer an appeal against the order dismissing his application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, rather preferred the appeal against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 21.05.2009 which has been disallowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal.