Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PIRTHI SINGH & ANR versus JUGAL KISHORE & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PIRTHI SINGH & Anr v. JUGAL KISHORE & Ors - RSA-996-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 408 (30 January 2006)

C.M.No.621-C of 2006 in

R.S.A.No. 996 of 2005 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.M.No.621-C of 2006 in

R.S.A.No. 996 of 2005 (O&M)

DATE OF DECISION:-30.1.2006

PIRTHI SINGH AND ANOTHER ......APPELLANTS VERSUS

JUGAL KISHORE AND OTHERS .......RESPONDENTS CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
***

Present:- Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants-applicants.

***

This application has been moved with a prayer to recall order dated 17.1.2006 vide which appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

Application is supported by an affidavit. In view of averments made in this application, it is allowed. Order dated 17.1.2006 stands recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number.

On request made by the counsel, appeal is taken up on board for hearing.

It is apparent from the record that the appellants filed a suit for recovery for return of earnest money. It was their case that as the respondents have failed to execute the sale deed in consequent to an C.M.No.621-C of 2006 in

R.S.A.No. 996 of 2005 (O&M)

agreement to sell, they were entitled to refund of earnest money paid by them along with interest. The suit was dismissed. The appellants also failed in appeal. Hence, this regular second appeal.

Both the Courts below have found it, as a matter of fact, that as per the terms and conditions of agreement to sell, the appellants have failed to show that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Both the Courts below found that they were at fault and not the respondents. This Court feels that impugned judgments and decrees are justified and need no interference.

No substantial question of law has been raised. Dismissed.

January 30, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH)

poonam JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.