- (1.) C. M. No. 6610-C of 2012: . For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. C.M. No. 6611-C of 2012 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 16 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Phool Singh has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. Plaintiff has substantially lost because of his own cleverness. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that defendants-respondents agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,52,000/- and received Rs. 2,51,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement dated 26.05.2002 and also delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and defendants committed breach thereof. The plaintiff filed suit on 07.05.2005 for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute and register sale deed of the suit land. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was also claimed. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved application for amendment of plaint (on 29.05.2008 - as stated by counsel for the appellant) to seek relief of specific performance of the agreement along with relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, as aforesaid. The said application was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2009 and accordingly, amended plaint dated 17.03.2009 was filed.
(2.) Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and controverted the plaint averments. It was pleaded that plaintiff had taken the suit property on license from defendant no. 1. Defendant no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte.
(3.) Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.2009, instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance of the agreement, decreed the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,51,000/- and also decreed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property illegally and forcibly, but defendants were given liberty to take possession in due course of law. Plaintiff preferred first appeal, wherein defendant no. 1 filed cross-objections. Learned District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff and allowed partly the cross-objections preferred by defendant no. 1 and partly set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court regarding refund of earnest money of Rs. 2,51,000/-, while maintaining the decree for permanent injunction. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.;