IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3564 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:15.2.2011 Dalbir Singh Petitioner vs. Kaushalaya Devi Respondent Present: Mr.Munish Behl, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. Delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned. The suit of the plaintiff- appellant for specific performance of an agreement of sale Ex.P-2 was decreed by the trial court directing the defendant- respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant but the lower appellate court has reversed the judgment of the trial court and granted the relief of recovery of earnest money by the plaintiff- appellant inter alia on the ground that the trial court had not discussed the implication of statements of Rohit Kumar DW1 and Raj Kumar DW2 in context to entry Ex.D1 which indicates that the defendant had obtained a loan from the plaintiff and that the agreement of sale was executed to secure the amount of loan. After going through the judgment of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the defendant, which has been relied upon by the lower appellate court had been ignored by the trial court. The lower appellate court has made certain observations while exercising the discretion vested in it to convert the suit for specific performance into a suit for recovery by granting an alternative relief. The discretion has been exercised in consonance with the principles laid down in Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No ground is made out to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below. Dismissed. February 15 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE