's^T '*{wwi, siTily'i®,fsi<?ii'My,< *11*1<11 <1>*<|CB •Wl 200 SD^I 'V^: (.fAyt^) 'DI^I ^BT RS'li'ti WT 3H^T st)ii<<* -& L_. (Wiw ^tel aii^l S.B. HON^LE SHRI DHIRENDfeA MISHRA. J avll Reirf<rion iTo. 106 of 2008 Petitioiiers Defendauts No. 1A&B T~i- gespondente PlamtifiF aud Defcudaul No. 2 Vwsns $hriinati Gayatri Sahu widow of i^anikuaiar Safau, ^ed 30 yeara. 4ill(<-l<il'1 WWft' ^f feA <{"lt<(l< i?affiif3ll^l ^havcsh Kumar Saliu as,ed 7 ^ears nunor son of Ramkumar $ah.u Uu-ough next fiiend natural 4iofher Smt, Gayatri Safau widow |f RaiBLkuiuai' ^ofh resident of vlUage Badesipat Tahsfl. Malkharoda District faajgir-Chainpa C.G, at present jesident ofvUlage Jaiuanipali near failgaon squarc poUcc Station, fahsU aad D^trict Korba (CG) ttartik Rara son of Runu Ram Ipewangan aged 55 yesa-s resideat ^f viBagc , post Policc statiuu aud ^aTisil Sakti DisfriRt .JaTijgir- ihaiapa (CG) thvaTn 1al SaTin Sion of Ysidiiv sad Sahu aged 49 years ijesident of viQa§e Badcsipat, TTahsU MaJkharoda District fanjgir-Chanipa (CG) at present ;sident of ViUage Jaouupali iiear (ailgaon square police station, 1'ahsfl and District Korba (CG) 24.6.2008 Shri P.K. Patel, leamed co|Linsel for (he petitioners. ^tTCI^T^T —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000. PHG—78 an^i^n^ro ^TSTT 3TI^?T^)*iiq) ^^ •<<i*iici<i, yitil'M'Ko, fqdi'yy *1!*<Cf(T WtNleh """""""""""""""""""""•^ 200 s^v Tr??T (lyfj«<s?) ^OTWdftaan^i •X ^NwiN wwff tf'fs^ft TfSTi^re ^? 3fRpT'STT^T Heard on admission. The suit was filed by th^ respondent/plaiatifffor retura of eamest money and dama^es wifh iaterest against the petitioners/defendants witlji fhe aUegation that the petitioners/defendants have |entered iato an agreement dated 15.5.2000 to seH their proper|y for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- afier receiving earnest money of| Rs.78,500/-. On the basis of pleadiags of fhe respective jparties, apart fi-om offaer issues, issue No.8 was framed as un4er; "Whether the plaintiff sould fUe the instant suit without formance ofcontract?" filing a siut for specific The petitioners moved 4n application under Order 14 Rule 2(2) of Code of CivU Procedi(re for decidm.g Che above issue as prelunmary issue, however.l fhe same was rejected by vide impugned order dated 1.2.20p8. Leamed counsel for |lie petitioners submits fhat the instant sutt ffled by fhe r^spondent/plamtiff for refund for eamest money and. damagesj te not mauitainable ia the absence of a suit for speci&c perfonliance of contract This issue was framed on fhe basis of obje< The issue could be decided ;tion of the petitioners/defendants. as preluatnary issue by the Court below as it's a purehr legal ^ssue and no evidence is necess ::HG—78 sf^t w R-f1'* WT STI^TgRTfW w-s lli'li 'itM^l ws fflillMJ ssx llieHS ^wssx^ rii T5T •<11<41<1<1, ®tll'M<IS,fsKII'Hy *<(W(T »><nci» •Wl 200 SII^T 1l=W ('yf^^1!) ^WW^fta 311^1 3 for deciding the same. How prayer offhe petitioners/def^ was open to fhe responden|t specific performance of coEttract retum ofearnest money und^ Act, 1872. Referring to Se|3tion 1963 it is argued fhat Tefiu|d can be clamied only under contract. I have heard leanied perused the material ave impugned order. counsel for the petitioners aad jilable on record including the The trial Court has re| wifh an observation that Ifie damages for breach ofcontdact Contract Act, 1872 and thei^ been observed that fhe issu^ law and fact Spe<{i&' Section 21 of ftie in a suit for speci&c perfor^ also claimcom.pensatk>n for| iu substitution of, such| ct>T<(fi?T<fhi tTWcff ^f fe^ ^fy(^l'< ^?3iRn sii^i ]ever, the Court below rejected the tndants with an observation fhat it t/plaintifF either to file a siut for or a suit for damages aiid fcr Section 73 ofthe Indism Contract 22 of the Specifie Relief Act, of earnest money aiid damages |a suit for speci&c performance of iected fhe prayer of fhe petitioners olaiatiff has ffled the suit for under Section 73 of fhe Indian fore, it is maiatainable. It has also in question is a mixed question of ipe4i&c ReUefAct, 1963 stipulates (hat 'or^iance of contract, the plaintiff' may its breach, either m addition to, or performance. But jn awarding ^ ^ f !-: ;^ ^w-;B:HG—78 <s*te%®^^^' T=[ '<ii<iid<i, ®'<fly<ie,filtliyy HWWf ^KWe^ w^zoo 3?I^T^T h-ii'h ^H SP^ ShHTq) ^ 3^[ 'q^? (ipfgsi^El) halt Conttract conipensation the Court sha] Section 73 ofthe Indiaa for eamest monev or damas tfae position fhat the conto such a suit fhe onty embarj claim. speciflc perfonnance damages. However, fhere i reading of Sectun 21 of (he plaintiff may claim compe^ addition to, or ia substitut] determining fhe amoiuit of| giuded by fhe principles sp\ Contract Act, 1872. On fhe basis of aforesalid there is no iIlegaUty or jurjs Court below warrantmg inl] jurisdiction under Section devoid of substance deserve^ dismissed at the admissiQn ^ii^f^Pili iTpq^ff ^f fs^ <f<^I< ^•affinsi^sr observe the prmciples specified in Act, 1872. In a suit for refurid [es swnplidter fhe plamttff accepts ;t is no longer continiung and in ko is that he cannot be allowed to >v aniendment in lieu of claim. for no bar, as is evident from bare Speciflc Relief Act, 1963, fhat fhe isation for its breach, either m [on of, such performance and for compensation, fhe Court is to be scified in Section 73 of the fadian analysis, I am of the opinion fhat idictional error committed bv the irference m. exerclse of revisional 115 of CPC. The petition bemg to be dismissed and is accordiagly, tage iteelf. —-"—~ - Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^.