GURDIT SINGH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner makes a grouse of the dismissal of his application under qtion 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In order to resolve the controversy raised in this petition the following facts deserve to be noticed.

(2.) ON December 19, 1974, a decree was passed against the Petitioner by the Senior Sub Judge, Jullundur, directing him to specifically perform the agreement contained in the receipt exhibited as P. 15 in that suit. The operative part of the decree concededly reads as follows:

(3.) IT is now being contended rather seriously by Mr. G. S. Sachdev, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that firstly the trial Court could not dismiss his application casually without permitting the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas and recording findings thereupon, and secondly, in the light of the above noted facts it is established beyond any doubt that the Respondent decree -holder had failed to perform his part of the contract as he did not deposit the balance of the sale consideration, i. e., Rs. 30,000/ - and also the requisite stamp and registration charges within the prescribed period of thirty days from the date of the passing of the decree in his favour, i. e., December 19, 1974. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter in the light of the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, I, however, find no merit in this petition.