IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.4360 of 2008 Date of Decision: 28.5.2009 Ram Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri P.R.Yadav,Advocate. Versus Satbir and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 25.4.2008 and 5.9.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed and the appeal of the defendant-appellant was dismissed. The respondents filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance in respect of the suit land as detailed in the plaint on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 21.6.2001. The total sale consideration was stated to have been fixed at Rs.1,40,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid to the appellant as earnest money in the presence of witnesses on the R.S.A.No.4360 of 2008 -2- .... date of agreement and the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on or before 20.11.2001. It was also agreed that in case the respondents failed to perform their part of contract, the earnest money shall stand forfeited, whereas in case the appellant failed to do so, they were given a right to get the sale deed executed and registered through Court of law at his cost. The appellant was alleged to have failed to execute the sale deed despite the legal notice having been served upon him by the respondents and despite the fact that they remained present whole day in the office of Sub Registrar, Farrukh Nagar along with balance sale consideration and other miscellaneous expenses. The respondents also got themselves marked present and obtained a certificate in this regard from the office of Sub Registrar. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed written statement contesting the claim of the respondents. He denied the agreement to sell having been executed by him on 21.6.2001. He submitted that the alleged agreement was a result of fraud. Other averments were also controverted. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.6.2001 in respect of the suit land?OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct?OPD R.S.A.No.4360 of 2008 -3- .... 3 (a) Whether the partition proceedings qua the suit land have already been concluded, if so its effect?OPD 4. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents and the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. The only contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the readiness and willingness of the respondents to perform their part of agreement was not established from the record. It was contended that the readiness and willingness of the respondent has to be continuous and in the absence of any such material, the suit could not have been decreed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the following question of law arises for consideration of this Court:- “Whether the willingness and readiness on the part of the respondents to perform their part of contract was continuous or not?” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by him is totally misplaced. The respondents have established by way of cogent evidence the execution of the agreement in question and also proved the passing of a part of the sale consideration. In any eventuality, the appellant has not R.S.A.No.4360 of 2008 -4- .... assailed the findings of the Courts below on these issues and has only stated that the willingness and readiness on the part of the respondents should be continuous. If the material on record is to be perused, it transpires that the agreement to sell was executed on 21.6.2001 and on which date, a part of the sale consideration was paid to the appellant as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.11.2001 and on that date, the respondents remained present in the office of Sub Registrar along with balance sale consideration and other expenses and it was the appellant, who did not come present to perform his part of contract. The presence of the respondents was marked by way of document Exhibit PW1/A in the office of Sub Registrar. The suit was instituted on 8.12.2001,i.e., within a month of the expiry of the time fixed for execution of the sale deed, which was on or before 20.11.2001. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that no further material was required as the filing of the suit promptly itself was a manifestation of the readiness and willingness of the respondents to perform their part of contract. Consequently, the question of law which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has to be answered in the given set of circumstances to hold that where a suit has been filed promptly, then it is the manifestation of the willingness and readiness of a plaintiff to perform his part of agreement. In the instant case, it has been established that the respondents were present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 20.11.2001 along with balance sale consideration and other expenses as agreed upon between the parties and this is a sufficient indicator of their willingness and R.S.A.No.4360 of 2008 -5- .... readiness to perform their part of agreement. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. May 28,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge