Rajasthan High Court
Kishor Singh S/O Rambaksh vs Murlidhar Singh S/O Sohan Singh on 25 August, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 998/2018
Kishor Singh S/o Rambaksh & ors.
----Appellants
Versus
Murlidhar Singh S/o Sohan Singh & Anr.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhoop Singh Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
25/08/2022
1. Appellants-defendants have moved an application
(I.A.No.1/2022) under Section 149 CPC seeking condonation of
delay in submitting the deficit court fees.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in
submitting the deficit court fees, is condoned. The deficit court
fees filed by the appellants is taken on record.
3. Accordingly, application (I.A.No.1/2022) stands disposed of.
4. Heard counsel for both the parties on appeal.
5. Appellants-defendants have filed this first appeal challenging
the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2018 whereby and
whereunder the civil suit for specific performance and permanent
injunction filed by respondents-plaintiffs has been decreed in their
favour.
6. Counsel for respondents-plaintiff has appeared as caveator
and submits that the impugned judgment and decree dated
01.08.2018 has already been executed and the registered sale
deed dated 17.02.2020 has been executed in their favour in
(2 of 3) [CFA-998/2018]
pursuance of the decree and the suit property is in their
possession.
7. Counsel for appellant does not dispute the aforesaid fact.
8. However, counsel for appellant submits that the trial court
has committed error of fact and law in decreeing the suit for
specific performance, as the agreement itself is unclear and vague
about the specifications of the suit property. He submits that the
amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.2,80,000/- is still deposited in
the court and appellants are not agree to receive the same
amount.
9. Heard.
10. Admit.
11. Issue notice to respondents.
Since, respondents-plaintiffs has already put in appearance
as caveator, notices need not to be issued. Service stands
complete.
12. Heard counsel for both the parties on stay application.
13. Having considered the fact that the impugned judgment and
decree dated 1.08.2018 has already been executed and the
amount of sale consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- is deposited before
the trial court, this Court deems it just and proper to pass the
following order on the stay application as an interim relief:
(A) Respondents shall not transfer the suit property
further during course of this first appeal.
(B) Since the amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, deposited by the
respondents, is laying before the trial court and the
appellants have declined to receive the same, therefore,
the trial court is directed to deposit that amount in FDR
before the nationalized bank initially for a period of three
(3 of 3) [CFA-998/2018]
years subject to renewal from time to time. The FDR
shall remain deposited with the trial court and the order
in relation to disbursement of the matured amount of
FDR would be passed at the appropriate stage.
14. The trial court may first complete the proceedings of
deposition and disbursement, as mentioned hereinabove,
thereafter shall send the record to this Court.
15. In view of above, stay application stands disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/25
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
