Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) IT appears from the record that the respondent had taken no objection from the counsel and thereafter has not appeared in this case on several dates. Consequently, this appeal/cross -objection is being heard ex parte. F.A. No. 67 of 2007 was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.2007 and 24.2.2007 respectively passed in T.S. No. 69/2003 by the learned Sub -Judge -I, Ranchi whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with respect to specific performance for execution of sale deed by the defendants. While dismissing the suit of the plaintiff the defendants were directed to return a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - which was received by original defendant i.e. the father (since deceased). The present appellants were substituted as legal heirs/representatives of original defendant.
(2.) F .A. No. 67/2007 was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 22.12.2014. The present cross -objection/Appeal was filed in F.A. No. 67/2007 under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant has submitted that the learned court below has erred in passing the decree for refund of the earnest money, in the absence of any pleading or relief sought for by the plaintiff/respondent in the court below. In support of her contention she has relied on the decision in the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat and Anr., reported in : (2001) 7 SCC 698 and submitted that the Apex Court, in the said decision, while interpreting Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, has held that in absence of any relief prayed by the plaintiff for possession or refund of any earnest money deposited by him, the Court shall not grant any relief in the matter.
(3.) HEARD . Perused the impugned order, Lower court records and the plaint.;