IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.11320-C of 2008 & RSA No.3801 of 2008 Decided on : 15.01.2010 Ajaib Singh ... Appellant versus Gian Chand & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.11320-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.3801 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of earnest money along with interest. Both the Courts below have held that the appellant was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed. The following questions have been proposed: RSA No.3801 of 2008 -2- i) Whether under the given facts and circumstances of the case since the continuation of readiness and willingness in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act has not proved, can be refund of money be ordered or justificable in terms of Section 16(c)Specific Relief Act, 1963? ii) Whether while under the bar to sue the defendant seeking refund of earnest money in Section 23, the simpliciter suit of refund of money is maintainable? iii) Whether under the given facts and circumstances since the order of execution of refund of money of the contract is caused hardship to the defendant/appellant, can be interrupted in terms of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1961? iv) Whether in terms of Section 269(U.C) of Income Tax Act, 1961 the non-compliance of get and clearance upon the vendor can be construe an obstacle to get an decree of specific performance of the contract? v) Whether through the statement of attesting witness and of the plaintiff, it has ever been established on record the requirement of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff as with regard to the consideration amount the altogether RSA No.3801 of 2008 -3- difference stands on different stage has been taken to construe the lack of readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff? vi) Whether under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the perverse and misconstrued finding are justificable or sustainable under the law? vii) Whether in terms of pleadings, the void contract, can be inforced under the law? Except for questions No.(iv) & (vii), all the other questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such mis-reading of evidence so as to render them perverse. Once these questions are held against the appellant, question No.(iv) recedes to the background. As regards question No.(vii), learned counsel has not been able to persuade me how the contract could be termed to be void. Holding the proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. January 15, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE