CR No. 3865 of 2009 Kirpal Singh Vs. Inderaj and another Present: Mr. Inder Jeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaswant Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** On 15.7.2009 the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel has argued that the suit filed by respondent no.1 for specific performance was decreed. The said respondent deposited the sale money and sale deed was got executed by the Court. However, when the petitioner moved an application for withdrawal o the amount, the respondent No.2 filed a reply stating that with regard to the same land appellant had entered into agreement to sell him also and on that basis he disputed the right of the appellant to withdraw the amount deposited by respondent No.1. Learned counsel has also argued that respondent No.1 has deposited an amount of Rs. 14 lacs while even as his own case the respondent No.2 had given advance of only Rs. 4 lacs and thus even if the suit of respondent No.2 is ultimately decreed, he can be at best to claim the refund of twice the amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 8 lacs. Therefore, learned counsel has argued that detention of any amount beyond Rs. 8 Lacs is in any case illegal. Notice of motion to respondent No.2 for 07.08.2009. Learned counsel prays for permission to serve the said respondent by way of dasti process. Permitted to do so. Process dasti only.” Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has sought to argue that CR No. 3865 of 2009 -2- the act of the petitioner is so morally reprehensible that he is not entitled to any money. However, learned counsel is not in a position to dispute that as far as his suit is concerned either it will be held that he is entitled to specific performance ( in which case the sale deed will be executed in his favour), or in the alternative he would be entitled to refund of the earnest money along with damages (two times). Thus, learned counsel is not in a position to deny that he would be entitled to Rs. 8 lacs plus interest. In the circumstances this revision is disposed of with the direction that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs (plus Rs. 50,000/- as interest accrued thereon ) would be retained by the Court and put in a fixed deposit in its own name so as to safeguard at least the monetary claim which the respondent No.2 may have against the petitioner. However, the remaining amount will be released to the petitioner. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 09, 2009 sunita