IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3124 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 19, 2008 Sanjeev Kumar Kataria ...... Appellant Versus Inderjit Goyal ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 25.2.1988 in respect of plot No. 420, Sector 15, Panchkula measuring 1 kanal for a total sale consideration of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The learned lower Appellate Court found as a fact that the plaintiff-appellant had made significant interpolations in the agreement to sell in so much as the amount of earnest money viz. Rs. 10,000/- was changed into Rs. 40,000/- and that the last date for execution of sale deed RSA No. 3124 of 2006 -2- was changed from 5.4.88 to 28.4.88. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged that the appellant would have gained nothing at that point of time or even subsequently from changing the date from 5.4.88 to 27.4.88. Therefore, findings of the learned lower Appellate Court and the effect of the said finding on his case were completely uncalled for. That may be so. Regarding the finding of interpolation in the amount of earnest money from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-, learned counsel for the appellant has again urged that the finding of the trial Court with regard to the amount also cannot be faulted. Learned counsel has taken me through the photocopy of the said document Ex.P1. In my opinion the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court on this issue cannot be termed to be perverse or held to be not arising from the material on the record from a perusal thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that in view of the proven facts that there was an agreement to sell between the parties; that the respondent was a willing party; that the total price was fixed and that the appellant had completely shown his readiness and willingness it was not a case where the relief of specific performance of the contract could have been refused. In my opinion the exercise by the learned lower Appellate Court of this discretion in refusing the discretionary relief of specific performance in view of the finding of the interpolation cannot be faulted. I may, however, add that the finding of the learned lower Appellate Court on the issue of limitation is clearly wrong since the present was a case where the appellant had originally filed the suit at Chandigarh in RSA No. 3124 of 2006 -3 view of the conferment of jurisdiction on the Courts at Chandigarh and it was only on 3.5.1991 that the plaint was returned to the appellant on the ground that the Chandigarh Courts had no territorial jurisdiction and thereafter without losing anytime the appellant had filed the suit at the competent court viz.Ambala and was thus entitled to the protection of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. However, I find that it would be in the interest of justice and in the circumstances of this case that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with 8% interest from the date of payment i.e. 28.2.1988 up to the date of realisation. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 19, 2008 sunita