Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of CACP Nos. 2 and 7 of 2010 as both the appeals have been filed by the alleged contemner in the same proceedings. CACP No. 2 of 2010 has been filed against finding recorded by learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.8.2010 holding the Appellant guilty of wilful and intentional disobedience to orders of this Court and giving him one week's time to purge the contempt. CACP No. 7 of 2010 is against further order dated 29.11.2010 allowing disposal of goods from the premises in dispute for enforcing order of this Court dated 29.5.2009 of which disobedience is in question.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 -contempt Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.1.2000 executed by the Appellant in his favour along with three other original Defendants. Since the other three Defendants did not contest the suit and admitted the claim of the Plaintiff, the sale deeds were executed by them with regard to their shares of the property. The Appellant contested the suit. One of the grounds for defence was that for 1/6th of the share, the Appellant had already entered into an agreement to sell which was subject matter of a suit already filed by the proposed vendees in the said agreement. It is now pointed out that though the trial Court did not grant decree for specific performance in the suit filed by Punit Kaur, the lower Appellate Court granted a decree against which appeal was pending in this Court. The suit of the contempt -Petitioner was decreed on 24.2.2006 by the trial Court against which appeal of the Appellant was dismissed on 1.3.2008 with the modification to the following effect: As such the judgment and decree of learned trial Court dated 24.2.2006 are hereby affirmed but it is made clear that said decree shall be subject to the rights of Respondent No. 5 Ms. Punit Kaur for 1/6th share in the suit property regarding which decree Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 have been passed in her favour. Second appeal of the Appellant against the said decree was dismissed on 29.5.2009. This Court noticed that sale deed had already been executed in favour of the Appellant with the intervention of the Court, in execution of the decree and possession was also delivered. However, during the pendency of the second appeal vide order dated 29.5.2008 this Court appointed the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat as receiver to take charge of the property from M/s Vardaan Food and Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. to whom the property had been leased by the judgment debtor and the articles lying therein. Vide order dated 9.7.2008 possession of the Appellant was restored as agent of receiver subject to final decision. The Court rejected the claim of the 3rd parties claiming rights under the Defendant -judgment debtor to be impleaded as parties. This Court also rejected the contention that Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, the decree for specific performance was affirmed. The Court commented upon the conduct of the Appellant in following terms: Thus, the Courts below finding that the act and conduct of the vendor was not above board, granted the relief of specific performance by turning down the prayer of the Appellant for grant of alternative relief to the Plaintiff. This Court is in total concurrence with what has been observed by the Courts below. Even otherwise, the competent courts of justice which exercise not only statutory powers, but jurisdiction in equity, should not be a mere onlooker of an attempt by one of the party to unreasonably, unjustifiably and unethically try to evade specific performance in order to make profit at the expense of the other party to the contract, who has concurrently found by the courts below, always ready and willing to perform the remaining part of his contract. An alternative plea of refund of earnest amount and damage cannot itself be a bar to claim a decree for specific performance of contract. But, no specific performance of a contract, though it is not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, can be granted if it would give an unfair advantage to the Plaintiff and where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the Defendant, which he did not foresee. However, what overt acts have been done by the Appellant are outcome of his own master mind and he has to face the music in respect of the repercussions thereof alone, but not at the cost of the Plaintiff. The grant of alternative relief to the Plaintiff instead of specific performance of agreement would be a supplement to the mis -deeds of the Appellant. Even it is the own undertaking of the Appellant, given before the courts below, regarding the construction raised on the suit land. He in unequivocal terms, had committed to remove the construction raised on the suit land at his own risk and costs, in case the suit is decreed or to give the same, without seeking any compensation, to the Plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the prayer of Appellant to grant alternative relief to the Plaintiff, is declined.
(3.) FINALLY the Court directed the Appellant to hand over possession to the decree holder within three weeks. The operative part of the order is as under: Before parting, it is mentioned here that the sale deed has already been executed in favour of the Plaintiff, but pursuant to directions issued by this Court, the possession in with the Appellant being an Agent of the receiver appointed by this Court. Therefore, with the dismissal of the aforesaid regular second appeals, the Appellant and the receiver are directed to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to Respondent No. 1 within a period of three weeks. The construction raised by the Appellant over the suit land, as per his own commitment, was at his own risk and costs. However, he shall remove the same within the said period, failing which the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to possess the suit property along with the construction raised thereupon without any payment in lieu thereof.;