R.S.A No. 462 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 462 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : November 12, 2008 Ran Singh, ...... Appellant. through Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate v. Smt. Sunita Devi & others, ...... Respondents through Mr. Surinder Lamba, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 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) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance on the ground that he had not been proved to be ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell, since he never presented himself before the Sub Registrar concerned on the appointed day. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had paid two further amounts of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- (this last one having been given on the date immediately preceding the date fixed for execution of sale deed to enable the respondent-vendor to redeem the mortgage) and that this clearly shows the readiness and willingness of the appellant. R.S.A No. 462 of 2006 ::2:: Both the Courts below have held that the appellant has not been able to prove these payments. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are not supported by any evidence and are, therefore, perverse. Faced with this, the second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly on the day of agreement to sell i.e 4.2.1994, earnest money of Rs.15,000/- was paid. Admittedly, on 17.5.1994 another sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. It is his contention that this amount of money cannot be considered as earnest money in any case and, therefore, could not have been forfeited in terms of the agreement which stipulated forfeiture of earnest money in the event of the appellant not fulfilling his part of the agreement. Mr. Lamba, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert the above assertion. In the circumstances, I dismiss this appeal, however, with one modification that the amount of Rs.30,000/- paid by the appellant on 17.5.1994 was not a part of the earnest money and, therefore, was not liable to be forfeited. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the respondents along with interest @ 6% p.a. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 12 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'