ANGAD WASON Vs. RAJNEESH JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this suit, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs. 50,00,000/-? alongwith pendente lite interest and future interest @ 18% per annum against the defendant.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that in the month of November, 2015, defendant contacted the plaintiff and offered to sell an Industrial Plot No. 205, measuring 500 square yards approximately, situated at Industrial Area Baddi, District Solan, H. P. , being an authorized partner of M/s Baoji Foot Fashion, i. e. , the allottee of above Industrial Plot. The defendant claimed his legal right, title, interest and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? authority to transfer the rights of original allottee in favour of the said Industrial Plot. Plaintiff bonafidely believed the representations made by the defendant and agreed to purchase the said plot from the defendant and a deal was struck at Rs. 65. 00 lacs and an agreement to sell the aforesaid plot for a total sale consideration of Rs. 65. 00 lacs was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 21. 12. 2015. As per the plaintiff, at the time of execution of the said agreement, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25. 00 lacs as earnest money to the defendant out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs. 65.00/-?. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 15. 00 lacs was paid in cash and a sum of Rs. 10.00/-? lacs was transferred to the account of defendant from the account of plaintiff through RTGS dated 21. 12. 2015. Receipt of an amount of Rs. 25. 00 lacs was duly acknowledged by the defendant in the presence of his father. The time for execution of sale deed was fixed as twelve months as from the date of execution of the agreement. The reason as to why the same was agreed upon, was that the defendant had requested and proclaimed that as he was running his business from the property agreed to be sold, he would require at least twelve months' time to wind up said business to be in a position to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the defendant. Defendant had also agreed to obtain necessary permission for sale of the aforesaid Industrial Plot from the authorized/original promoter/management with the promise to furnish requisite documents at least 15 days prior to the last date of performance of agreement dated 21. 12. 2015. The plot in issue was owned by the Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation, who allotted the same to M/s Baoji Foot Fashion. As demonetization of currency took place in the country before the end of period of performance of agreement dated 21. 12. 2015, the defendant on the said pretext expressed his inability to wind up his business before 21. 12. 2016 and plaintiff accordingly agreed to extend the period of performance of aforesaid agreement till 31. 03. 2017. Plaintiff had made all arrangements for payment of balance sale consideration to the defendant before 15th March, 2017. He tried to contact the defendant, however, the defendant did not respond. Defendant also did not come forward with the requisite permission of the Himachal Pradesh State Industries Development Corporation to complete the sale transaction. As per the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell dated 21. 12. 2015. Vide Legal Notice dated 18. 03. 2017, the defendant was called upon to perform his part of the agreement, but he did not respond to the same. Thereafter, plaintiff waited for more than reasonable period for the defendant to come forward to perform his part of the agreement dated 21. 12. 2015. However, the defendant failed to take any step in this regard, which demonstrated that the defendant was not interested in transferring the property in question to the plaintiff and in fact had duped the plaintiff of substantial amount of money. According to the plaintiff, as per the terms of agreement to sell dated 21. 12. 2015, any default on the part of the defendant or his failure to comply with terms and conditions stipulated therein, entitled the plaintiff either to seek specific performance of agreement through process of law or claim double the amount of earnest money paid to the defendant. Further, as per the plaintiff, he had planned to purchase the property in question from the defendant for a specific purpose, which was frustrated on account of default committed by the defendant. Plaintiff accordingly sought the relief of recovery of Rs. 50. 00 lacs, i. e. , doubt the amount of earnest money paid by him to the defendant. As per the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant in terms of agreement dated 21. 12. 2015 and as the defendant had illegally withheld the said amount from the plaintiff, therefore, defendant was also liable to pay interest on the said amount @18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and further the cause of action arose in his favour on 31. 03. 2017 for the first time when defendant failed to perform his part of the agreement dated 21. 12. 2015 and was continuing on each and every successive day, as the default of the defendant was persisting. He has accordingly prayed for a decree of Rs. 50,00,000/-? alongwith interest pendente lite and future @ 18 % per annum.

(3.) Despite service of notice upon the defendant, he chose not to appear before the Court, therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28. 06. 2018.