IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.4.2010 Jaspal Singh ....Appellant Versus Jasbir Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.K.Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.Nos.5138 & 5139-C of 2010 Delay of 45 days in re-filing and 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons mentioned in the applications. Applications stand disposed of. C.M.No.5140-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.5141-C of 2010 in/and R.S.A.No.1702 of 2010 This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 16.3.2006 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 3.9.2009. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 15.5.2000 which the R.S.A.No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -2- appellant had entered into with him for the sale of 7 kanals 2 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No.38//2/2 Khatoni No.416 along with right in a tube-well, motor and other rights attached to the land for a total sale consideration of Rs.1.5 lacs. Out of this Rs.1 lac were paid as earnest money and possession of the land was delivered to the respondent according to his case. The date of registration of the sale deed was fixed as 14.12.2000. The appellant defaulted leading to the filing of the aforesaid suit. In the written statement he denied the existence of the agreement to sell as also the receipt of the earnest money and the possession. Out of the six issues which were framed three relevant issues are extracted as under :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance on the basis agreement of sale dt. 15.5.2000? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract?OPP The learned trial Court as also the first Appellate Court decided these issues in favour of the respondent and directed the execution of the sale deed. Aggrieved by the said findings, in the instant appeal learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings are erroneous and perverse and that the Courts below should have examined the feasibility of resorting to the grant of an alternate relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act especially when such a R.S.A.No.1702 of 2010 (O&M) -3- prayer had been made and when the circumstances justified the exploration and grant of such a relief. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The glaring fact which strikes at the bottom of the case of the appellant is that he did not produce any evidence neither did he examine himself as a witness depriving the Courts below of any material which could justify either the grant of an alternate relief in his favour or to assess the Courts to arrive at a conclusion which was supportive of the case of the appellant. There is indeed no doubt that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act casts a duty upon the Court to examine in such like cases the feasibility of grant of alternate relief provided the circumstances so justified it but in the absence of any material before the Courts below, the mere fact that the courts have not granted the relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be scrutinised adversely to the detriment of the plaintiff. There is no reason to differ with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 30.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss