Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No. 6335-C of 2013
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 19 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM Nos. 6337-38-C of 2013
2. Counsel for the applicant-appellants states that the documents sought to be placed on record of this appeal are part of the trial Court record.
3. CMs are allowed subject to all just exceptions.
RSA No. 2321 of 2013 (O & M)
4. This is plaintiffs'' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby, in a suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 5.8.2001, appellants have been denied the specific performance and the suit has been decreed for alternative relief of
refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was paid as earnest money to the defendant-respondent.
5. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that once execution of the agreement in question stood proved then they should have not been
denied the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as
Abhey Singh and Others Vs. Ramesh Kumar and Others, wherein it has been held that normal rule is to allow specific performance and it is rarely
that the said relief may be denied. To support his argument, counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the case in hand is not a case
where rare circumstances existed for denying the said relief to him. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the following substantial
question of law arises in this appeal:
Whether the Courts below while refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell in question have exercised its discretionary
powers u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, arbitrarily and illegally?
6. However, it may be seen that the last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 31.8.2002 and after the said date was over, the plaintiff-
appellants did nothing to show their readiness and willingness for performance of their part of the agreement and kept quiet for a long period.
Though it is their case that before filing of the suit, which was filed within limitation of 3 years, the appellants had issued a legal notice dated
15.6.2004 (Ex. P-3) asking the defendant-respondent to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell in question, however, a
finding has been recorded by the Courts below that there is no evidence on record to prove the factum of issuance of said notice to the defendant-
respondent. Even before this Court, counsel for the appellants could not point out any evidence to prove the fact that said notice was ever sent to
the defendant-respondent. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, the findings of the Courts below on issue No. 3 cannot be found faulted with.
7. At this stage, it may further be noticed that u/s 20 of the Specific Relief Act, grant of specific performance is a discretionary relief and the Court
is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The only requirement of law, of course, is that the said discretion should not
be arbitrary but sound and reasonable and guided by judicial principles. In the facts and circumstances of the case, counsel for the appellants could
not argue that the discretion used by the Courts below while not grating relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question is
arbitrary in any manner.
8. No other point has been argued.
9. Thus, no substantial question of law, as raised in this appeal, arises. Dismissed.