% HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RSA 82/2009 Date of decision : 13'^''July, 2009 SEEMA SINGH Appellant Through : Mr. Sakesh Kunnar, Advocate Versus S.S.JASPAL Respondent Through : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH (1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? JUDGMENT ARUNA SURESH. I. fOral) CM APPL.9269/2009 (exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of RSA 82/2009 Page 1of5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified a RSA 82/2009 1. Appellant is owner of property bearing Plot No.C- 1/110, DLF Dilshad Extn.ll, Ghaziabad, measuring 250 Sq. Yds. She entered into an agreement with the respondent for the sale of the said property for total consideration of Rs.12,50,000/- and an agreement to sell dated 15.8.2003 was executed between the parties. At the time of execution of the agreement, the respondent paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- against the total sale consideration, duly admitted by the appellant in the said agreement to sell. 2. Since appellant failed to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the suit property within the period of 90 days as agreed, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of double the amount of the earnest money i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- as per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement to sell. 3. The Civil Judge vide its judgment dated 29.4.2008 was pleaded to pass a decree for Rs.1,00,000/- with costs in favour of the respondent and against the RSA 82/2009 Page 2 of5 c appellant. The trial court awarded interest @ 8% per annum from 14.11.2003 till realization. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal being RCA No.11/08. While upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court, the Appellant court was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Hence, this second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by the appellant. 5. Appellant has formulated following substantial questions of law in para 1 of the appeal:- "i. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is liable to give a notice about clearance from Ghaziabad Development Authority, despite the land being a free hold land? ii. Whether a clause in standard form of agreement to sale prescribed by the property dealers though non-applicable for general sale-purchase, would become sine-qua-non for its execution? iii. Whether the limitation for execution of an agreement would be governed by a non- applicable Standard-format clause?" RSA 82/2009 Page 3 of5 3 C 6. From the form of the questions itself, it is clear that they do not raise any substantial question of law but are questions of facts. These facts have been specifically dealt with by the trial court as well as by the First Appellate Court and both the courts have given concurrent findings on the suggested questions. 7. In my view, appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. 8. Clause 1 of the agreement dated 15.8.2003 specifically contains stipulation that in case the Sale Deed was not executed within a specified period, the purchaser was entitled to forfeiture or double the amount of the earnest money paid to the seller. 9. The trial court rightly observed that in terms of Clause 2 of the agreement, appellant was required to take No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) and inform about the same to the respondent but appellant failed to take any steps to obtain NOC from the GDA within the stipulated period of 90 days. RSA 82/2009 Pag^ "^ofS 10. The terms and conditions contained in the agreement cannot be questioned by the appellant in this appeal by suggesting certain issues of fact giving them a cover of substantial question of law. 11. Under these circumstances, I conclude that since no substantial question of law is required to be formulated and determined by this court in this appeal. 12. Hence, I find no merits in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. V (ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE JULY 13, 2009 vk RSA 82/2009 Page 5 of5 5