R.S.A.No.1796 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1796 of 2008 Date of Decision : 24.08.2009 Noor Din ...Appellant Versus Charta Ram ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr. K.S.Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3.3.2000 was decreed for the refund of the earnest money alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Vide the aforesaid agreement to sell, the defendant-appellant agreed to sell the land measuring 6 Kanals 6 Marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,65,456/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.2,10,000/- per acre. Rs.90,000/- was paid as earnest money, whereas the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on 31.12.2000. Since, the defendant did not execute the sale deed within the agreed time, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance on 20.3.2001. Learned trial Court decreed the suit granting money decree for R.S.A.No.1796 of 2008 2 the recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- i.e. twice of the earnest money alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum w.e.f. 2.2.2001, but the learned first Appellate Court reversed the said judgment and decree and granted refund of the amount of earnest money alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that since the Courts below have found the transaction between the parties is a transaction of loan, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest. Reference is made to Tejram Vs. Patirambhau AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2702. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the argument raised. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not granted any interest in the aforesaid case, while granting decree for recovery of the payment of earnest money, but there is no principle of law, which can be said to be applicable in the facts of the present case. The aforesaid judgment is not a precedent for the proposition that when ever a decree for recovery is granted in a suit for payment of earnest money in favour of a money-lender, the interest cannot be awarded. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 24.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE