VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.2.1995 has been ordered to be dismissed. This Court on 17th of July, 2006 passed the following order :- "Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that an agreement to sell dated 6.2.1995 executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was shrouded in suspicious circumstances and the Courts below have not considered this aspect and have not returned a satisfactory finding to that effect and, therefore, the findings are perverse on this point. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Both the courts have returned a concurrent finding that the agreement was valid and have negated the plea of the appellants. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. It has been next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the courts below have not exercised their discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Both the Courts have passed a decree directing the appellants to execute the sale deed in pursuance to the agreement to sell. He submits that the appellants are ready to compensate the respondents by returning the amount along with interest and whatever terms this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Shri Madan Pal, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent No. 1 prays for time to seek necessary instructions. Adjourned to 21.9.2006. In the meanwhile, execution proceedings shall remain stayed." In pursuance to this order learned counsel for respondent No. 1 made a statement that respondent No. 1 was not ready to accept damages in lieu of specific performance of the contract and consequently the case was directed to be heard on merit.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants contends that the appellant defendant is a widow having minor children and, therefore, she is likely to suffer great hardship in case the agreement to sell dated 6.2.1995 is directed to be performed by way of specific performance as ordered by the learned courts below :- Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that under Section 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, it is the duty of Court to see if the damages can be granted in lieu of the performance of the contract. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellants is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarita Rani v. Deepak Rai, 2001(2) RCR(Civil) 647 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that in absence of a plea and evidence regarding hardship to be suffered as a result of sale being asked to be specifically performed, the provisions of Section 20(2)(b) cannot be applied. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. Accordingly, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;