R.S.A.No.1973 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1973 of 2007 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Maninder Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus Pritam Chand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff- Pritam Chand filed a suit for recovery of Rs.77,000/- (principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.27,000/- as interest thereon) against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2004 for recovery of earnest money of Rs.50,000/-. In appeal the interest was also allowed to the plaintiff R.S.A.No.1973 of 2007 2 on the principal amount by the District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants-defendants No.2 and 3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The plaintiff filed this suit on the averments that defendants had entered into an agreement to sell a house bearing No.450/12, MCK, for Rs.3,85,000/- vide a written arguments to sell dated 3.1.1996. The defendants also received Rs.50,000/- by way of earnest money on 3.1.1996. The target date for execution and registration of sale deed was 15.7.1996. The plaintiff was always reading and willing to perform his part of the contract and he was even present on 15.7.1996 in the office of Sub Registrar with the balance sale consideration etc., but the defendants failed to turn up for executing the sale deed. Later on, it had turned out that one Smt.Gurcharan Kaur along with her son and daughters had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present defendants, on the allegations that they (plaintiffs of that suit) were owners in possession of the house in question. Vide orders dated 15.6.1996 passed in the said civil suit, the present defendant were restrained from selling the house. So the plaintiff asserted that it had become impossible for R.S.A.No.1973 of 2007 3 the defendants to complete the sale deed and hence, the plaintiff had become entitled to refund of his earnest money of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs. Hence, this suit. 3. The defendants in their joint written statement admitted the execution of the agreement for sale and receipt of Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. However, it was pleaded that the defendants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and it was the plaintiff who had failed to perform his part of the contract and so has forfeited the earnest money. It was also pleaded that suit was not maintainable in the present form and only a suit for specific performance of the contract was maintainable.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.77,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the ground alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Relief. ” R.S.A.No.1973 of 2007 4 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of earnest money of Rs.50,000/- was decreed. The appellants did not challenge the said judgment and decree by way of an appeal. In fact, the plaintiff went in appeal challenging the part of the judgment and decree, whereby interest was not granted to him on the amount of earnest money. Thus, the controversy involved in this appeal is as to whether interest could be awarded on the amount of earnest money or not. The agreement to sell in question was entered between the parties on 3.1.1996 and the defendants received Rs.50,000/- as earnest money. The defendants were unable to execute the sale deed on account of injunction order passed by the Civil Court on 15.6.1996 restraining the defendants from executing the sale deed. The said civil suit was filed by one Gurcharan Kaur and her children against the present defendants, wherein the order dated 15.6.1996 was passed. The fact remains that in case the defendants were not in a position to execute the sale deed, they should have returned the earnest money to the plaintiff. However, the defendants kept the money with them for a very long period. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned District Judge, Kaithal, while allowing the interest to the plaintiff on the amount of earnest money, cannot be said to be perverse. The plaintiff has been held entitled to pendente lite interest @ 9% per annum and R.S.A.No.1973 of 2007 5 future interest @ 6% per annum on the earnest money. The said rate of interest cannot be said to be on a higher side. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 07, 2009 anita