ARUN BHANSALI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions in relation to the concurrent findings by the two courts below on issue No.7 pertaining to the suit being barred by limitation and finding of the trial court pertaining to the readiness and willingness on part of the appellant under issue No.4. Further submissions were made that the trial court was not justified in ordering for delivery of possession of the suit property while denying the relief of specific performance.
(2.) It was emphasized that the finding on issue pertaining to limitation is perverse and that the appellate court fell in error in not deciding the issue pertaining to readiness and willingness, which was wrongly determined by the trial court.
(3.) Submissions were also made that in absence of any counter claim on part of the defendants seeking possession of the suit property, which was delivered to the appellants in part performance of the contract, the relief granted by the trial court and not dealt with by the first appellate court, cannot be sustained. On the said aspect, reliance was placed on Nabi Khan through LRs. and Ors. v. Roojdar and Ors.: 2010(2) WLC(Raj.) 630.;