R.S.A. No. 4088 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4088 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.1.2009 Pritam Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Rajan Madan ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Raghubir Tejpal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance has been decreed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.3.2005 executed between the parties. The factum of the payment of earnest money as well as execution of the agreement was not disputed by the appellant/defendants. The only plea raised by the appellant/defendants was that the discretionay relief of specific performance be not granted on account of hardship. The case set up by the appellant/defendants was that they had agreed to sell the land in order to purchase other property. However, the deal entered into by them could not be materialised and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance be dismissed. R.S.A. No. 4088 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The learned Courts below relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Damacharla Venkata Seshias Vs. Damacharla Venkayya and others AIR 1974 Andhra Pradesh 193 wherein it was laid down that self inflicted hardhip is not a ground to deny the specific performance of the agreement and decreed the suit by rejecting the plea of appellants. Mr. Bhag Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manohar Lal @ Manohar Singh Vs. Maya, 2004(2) P.L.R. 542 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bal Krishna and another Vs. Bhagwan Das (Dead) and others, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 732 to contend that in view of the hardhip, it is always open to the Court to decline the relief of specific performance. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the suit, the plaintiff had claimed alternative claim of double amount of earnest money. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. It may be noticed that the hardship pleaded by the appellant/defendants was self-created hardship and not arising out of the act of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the defendant/appellants that the hardship is likely to result due to the specific performance of contract executed between the parties. The second contention of the learned counsel also cannot be accepted as it is well settled law that stipulation in the agreement that party would be entitled to double the amount of earnest money in case of R.S.A. No. 4088 of 2008 (O&M) -3- breach would not disentitle the plaintiff to seek the relief of specific performance. Decree for specific performance is required to be granted in case it is proved on record that the agreement was executed between the parties and the plaintiff has been willing and still willing to perform his part of contract. The ingredients required for enforcing the contract are fulfilled and, therefore, the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have rightly found that the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises for consideration by this Court in the appeal. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 8, 2009 R.S.