RIDHKARAN PARASRAMPURIA & ANOTHER Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendants are aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2014 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed an application filed under Order 12, Rule 6 CPC by the petitioners.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Chandra Prakash Agarwal, filed a suit for specific performance, injunction and possession against the petitioner-defendants with regard to an agricultural land situated in village Neendad, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. According to him, the petitioners had agreed to sell the suit property for a total of Rs.6,70,00,000/-. Thus, both the parties had entered into an agreement to sell on 22.3.2013. According to the agreement, an amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/- was paid through four cheques by the plaintiff to the petitioners. It was further agreed that the remaining amount shall be paid on 31.5.2013, and the sale-deed be registered in the plaintiff's favour. However, subsequently the petitioners refused to get the sale-deed registered, despite the offer by the respondent-plaintiff with regard to the remaining amount.

(3.) The petitioners filed their written statement. During the proceedings, initially, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC wherein the respondent-plaintiff prayed that since in the written statement the petitioners have admitted the fact that an agreement to sell was entered between the parties, and have also admitted the fact that a notice was sent to them for performance of the contract, therefore, the judgment should be pronounced on the basis of such admission. However, by order dated 15.2.2014 the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff.