RSA No.1775 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1775 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.09.2010. Man Singh .....Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N. S. Behgal, Advocate for caveator-respondent. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by Man Singh-defendant. Amarjit Singh-respondent filed suit against the appellant for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.06.2004. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.2009 dismissed the suit with costs. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent has been partly allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010. It has been observed that the transaction between the parties seemed to be a loan transaction. The plaintiff had allegedly paid Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money to the defendant. The lower appellate Court has accordingly decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- with costs throughout, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of agreement dated 08.06.2004 till recovery. It was stipulated that the defendant shall pay the amount within 2 months, failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to specific RSA No.1775 of 2010 -2- performance of the agreement. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant could not deposit the decretal amount within the stipulated period of 2 months, but the appellant is now ready to deposit the said amount with interest upto date and is also ready to pay the expenses of the sale deed incurred by plaintiff-respondent in getting the sale deed executed pursuant to conditional decree of the lower appellate Court. Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff has opposed the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant and contended that sale deed has since been executed in favour of plaintiff-respondent pursuant to decree of the lower appellate Court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by the trial Court. Even the lower appellate Court observed that the transaction between the parties appeared to be a loan transaction. Penal consequences for the defendant for default in not paying the decretal amount within the stipulated period of 2 months as per decree of lower appellate Court would be very drastic and serious as he would be deprived of the suit land, although the transaction between the parties seemed to be a loan transaction as per observation of the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the defendant-appellant should be granted another opportunity to pay the decretal amount, but with some penal consequences of lesser import. In my RSA No.1775 of 2010 -3- considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the defendant- appellant is permitted to pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 9% per annum granted by the lower appellate Court, in addition to the litigation costs throughout and expenses of the sale deed. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed partly and judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are modified to the extent that the defendant-appellant shall pay the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to plaintiff-respondent along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum since 08.06.2004, the date of agreement, till date of repayment. The defendant shall also pay litigation costs throughout and shall also pay the expenses of the sale deed incurred by the plaintiff-respondent. The amount shall be deposited in the Executing Court/trial Court within one month from today. On such payment, the sale deed already executed pursuant to conditional decree of the lower Appellate Court shall be treated as cancelled. However, in the event of failure of the defendant to deposit the amount within the stipulated period , the instant second appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. If the defendant-appellant is found entitled to refund of any amount of stamp duty paid on the sale deed, the defendant may get refund thereof in accordance with the law from the competent authority. I am not expressing any opinion on this aspect. 13.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE