RSA No.2906 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2906 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 11.11.2010 Pala Singh ... Appellant versus Krishan Lal ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present : Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for the respondent. **** Gurdev Singh, J. This second appeal has been preferred by Pala Singh – appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2009 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal filed by Krishan Lal respondent/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Ferozepur was accepted and the suit was partly decreed for specific performance of the agreement. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for possession of the land in dispute measuring 16 kanals situated at village Jhoke Hari Har by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.07.1999 (ex.P-1). He stated in his plaint that the agreement was executed in his favour by the defendant and the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell were incorporated therein. The sale deed was to be executed on 02.08.1999 but the defendant RSA No.2906 of 2009 (O&M) -2- failed to do so though he remained present with the balance sale consideration and necessary expenses in the Tehsil Office, Ferozepur. During all this period, he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. He also prayed for the alternative relief for recovery of ` 4,08,000/-; ` 3,00,000/- paid as earnest money and ` 1,08,000/- as interest calculated @ 12% per annum. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant. In his written statement, he denied all the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that the agreement is forged and fabricated document. In fact, he stood as surety for his colleague Paramjit Singh, who was working as Cashier in Ferozepur Central Coop. Bank Ltd. at Guruharsahai and took a loan of ` 4,00,000/- from the plaintiff. During that transaction, his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the plaintiff. Said Paramjit Singh sold his two plots worth ` 3,00,000/- i.e. ` 1,50,000/- each in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of the amount so borrowed by him. He also pleaded that in the notice dated 14.03.2002 served by the plaintiff through counsel, it was wrongly mentioned that the possession was delivered to him. After filing of replication, learned trial court framed the issues and called upon the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective pleas. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record carefully, learned trial court decided issues No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent and issue No.4 against him and resultantly decreed his suit in the alternative for recovery while disallowing the relief of specific performance of RSA No.2906 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the agreement. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree, which was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for specific performance. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that the relief of specific performance was rightly disallowed by the trial court on the ground that facts were mis-stated by the plaintiff/respondent in the notice served upon the defendant. The jurisdiction of the lower courts to grant specific performance was discretionary and that discretion was properly exercised by the trial court. The First Appellate Court committed an illegality while decreeing the suit for specific performance. According to Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. However, that discretion is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable one, which is guided by judicial principles. Some of the instances in which the specific performance can be refused are enumerated in that section itself. In addition to that there are other circumstances also in which the decree for specific performance can be refused. However, the ground on which the trial court refused to grant the decree for specific performance cannot be sustained. In fact, the jurisdiction has been exercised by the trial court arbitrarily and not judiciously. The mentioning of a wrong fact in the notice that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property could not have been made a ground to refuse the just relief when the plaintiff RSA No.2906 of 2009 (O&M) -4- had been able to prove the agreement to sell the land in dispute in his favour and also the fact that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Correct finding was recorded by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. November 11, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH) sonia JUDGE