RSA No.371 of 2004 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.371 of 2004 Date of Decision: 7.8.2009 Sanjeev Kumar ......Appellant Versus Haryana Financial Corporation and another .......Respondents 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: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for appellant. Shri Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby plaintiff's suit for declaration was partly decreed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property of M/s Asian Polymers (P) Ltd., Ambala, measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas was put to auction by the defendants on 25.5.1992 in the total sum of Rs.8,30,000/-. A sum of Rs.2,08,000/- was deposited with the defendants as earnest money and the balance amount of Rs.6,22,000/- was to be paid in 12 equal instalments commencing from 1.10.1992 and the last instalment was to be paid by 1st of June, 1995. It is the case of the plaintiff that the possession of the land RSA No.371 of 2004 (2) measuring 6 kanals and 14 marlas was delivered to the plaintiff at the site as against 7 kanals and 2 marlas of the land advertised to be sold. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed reduction of proportionate value of Rs.45,050.50p. Since the plaintiff has not deposited the aforesaid amount, the defendant issued a show cause notice to recover the same, which show cause notice was challenged by the plaintiff in the suit. The learned trial Court found that the land allotted to the plaintiff is short by 6 marlas, therefore the notice of recovery is illegal and invalid. The plaintiff was found entitled to proportionate value equivalent to the land measuring 6 marlas along with interest and penal interest thereon. However, in appeal, the decree was modified and it was ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to adjust the proportionate value of 8 marlas of land in the outstanding amount against it. It is the said decree, which is challenged by the appellant before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the adjustment of proportionate value granted in favour of the plaintiff itself may not be tenable. The property was sold on `as is where is' basis. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise grievance in respect of minor discrepancies, while delivering actual physical possession of the property. If the plaintiff was aggrieved against the delivery of the land the measurement whereof was less than what was projected to be sold, it was open to the appellant to surrender the land and seek refund of the amount deposited. Once the plaintiff has accepted the terms and conditions of sale and deposited the earnest money, it is not open to the appellant to seek adjustment. However, since the defendants are not in appeal, therefore, no order adverse to the plaintiff-appellant can be passed against the appellant RSA No.371 of 2004 (3) in the present appeal. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 7.8.2009 ds