1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 179/2002 Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. V. A. Naik, J. DATED : April 13, 2007. Heard Shri Malode for the appellant, and Shri Vyas for the respondent. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for grant of specific performance of contract of sale of plot. According to the plaintiff, the plot was allotted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust to the defendant/respondent. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for decree of refund of earnest amount with interest. The trial and the appellate Court, on consideration of the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the agreement of sale between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Courts, however, considered the fact that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had constructed a house on the suit plot and though an application was filed by the plaintiff for grant of injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from making any further construction, the prayer made in the application was refused. 2 Since the defendant had constructed the entire building on the suit plot during the pendency of the suit, the trial and the appellate Court held that the hardship suffered by the defendant would be much more than the hardship suffered by the plaintiff, in case a decree of specific performance of contract was granted. The Courts then held that the defendant had no valid title to pass on to the plaintiff as the defendant had defaulted in paying the ground rent and other necessary charges to the Nagpur Improvement Trust towards the allotment of plot. The trial Court had granted the alternate prayer of refund of the amount with interest and the said decree was maintained by the appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts and do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Since no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Cross-Objection Stamp No. 10888/02 Since no substantial question of law is made out in the cross-objection filed by the respondent, same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP