R.S.A. No. 1106 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1106 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 30, 2011 Harbhajan Singh …..Appellant. Vs. Vaid Datar Singh @ Didar Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The suit of the plaintiff- appellant for specific performance of the agreement was decreed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court in the exercise of discretion vested under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act has granted the alternative relied to the plaintiff- appellant for recovery of earnest money of ` 30000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of agreement of sale dated January 5, 1994. R.S.A. No. 1106 of 2011 (O&M) [2] Counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has vehemently contended that the discretion has not been fairly exercised and that no plea of loan had been raised by the defendant- respondent. I have heard counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the judgment passed by the Courts below. A perusal of the facts indicates that the defendant had taken a specific plea that he had taken a loan of ` 5000/- from the plaintiff- appellant in the year 1993 and the said amount could not be returned to the plaintiff. The defendant had then asked the plaintiff to execute a bond as a security for the return of ` 5000/- alongwith interest but the plaintiff in a fraudulent manner in collusion with the deed writer got forged and fabricated the agreement of sale. The defendant had denied the handing over of earnest money of ` 30000/-. A perusal of the record indicates that a house has been constructed on the property in dispute. Considering all the facts and circumstances established on the record, it is apparent that the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act has not been improperly exercised as the plaintiff would undoubtedly get an unfair advantage over the defendant in case the suit for specific performance is decreed. Counsel for the appellant without waiving of his right to claim specific performance has submitted that at least some additional compensation should have been awarded to the plaintiff. I have taken into consideration the said plea but in view of provisions of Section 21 (5) of the Specific Relief Act that no compensation R.S.A. No. 1106 of 2011 (O&M) [3] shall be awarded unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in the plaint no additional compensation can be granted to the plaintiff. I do not find any sufficient ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant for the alternative relief in a suit for specific performance. Dismissed. March 30, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE