R.S.A. No. 228 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 228 of 1988 Date of decision: May 13, 2010 Balbir Singh Appellant Versus Hardial Singh Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Defendant-appellant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 passed by First Appellate Court thereby partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff only for cancellation of the agreement dated 11.4.1981 and further dismissing rest of the suit of the plaintiff for rendition of account. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff filed suit for rendition of accounts and cancellation of the agreement dated 11.4.1981 with the allegations that plaintiff is owner of the agricultural land described in the plaint; plaintiff was residing in Canada hence he entered into agreement with defendant for plantation of Eucalyptus trees in the plaintiff's land; it was stipulated in the agreement dated 11.4.1981 that plaintiff would do plantation and, thereafter, defendant would maintain and nurse the trees; defendant would be entitled for 30% of the profit. It is further alleged R.S.A. No. 228 of 1988 2 by the plaintiff that plaintiff had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the defendant for plantation of trees and defendant had planted only 3000 seplings and did not render the accounts for Rs. 20,000/-; Further case of the plaintiff is that since defendant is guilty of breach of contract, hence, agreement dated 11.4.1981 be cancelled and decree for rendition of accounts be passed. 3. Defendant has contested the suit by way of filing written statement on various grounds. The main ground of defendant is that defendant has constructed pucca room and installed the tubewell and planted trees and now plaintiff can not cancel the agreement and can not ask for rendition of accounts. 4. Learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 for rendition of accounts and dismissed the suit for cancellation of agreement dated 11.4.1981. Feeling aggrieved plaintiff had preferred the first appeal which was decided by the first Appellate Court by impugned judgment dated 26.9.1987. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 6. Undisputedly, as per agreement to sell plaintiff had to do plantation and defendant had to maintain and nurse the trees. There was no stipulation in the agreement that defendant would do the plantation. However, as per the case of both the parties it seems that defendant having received Rs. 20,000/- did the plantation. 7. Learned first Appellate Court applied the principle of “maximising satisfaction” and observed that defendant has planted the trees having received Rs. 20,000/-, hence there is no question of rendition of accounts. First Appellate Court further observed that plaintiff had not planted any tree which was the duty of the plaintiff as per the agreement, hence there is no justification to continue the agreement dated 11.4.1981. 8. From the perusal of records it seems both the parties did not R.S.A. No. 228 of 1988 3 act as per the agreement dated 11.4.1981 and are guilty of breach of terms and conditions thereof. Hence, agreement can not be enforced in favour of either party. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case application of “maximising satisfaction” is justified and called for no interference. 9. View taken by the first Appellate Court seems to be justified. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. 10. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) 13.05.2010 JUDGE reena