IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 126 CR-6838-2025 Date of Decision.:25.09.2025 Kailash Chand …..Pe--oner Vs. Sandeep Chaudhri and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Vishal Handa, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoner herein is contesng defendant before learned Addional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal in civil suit bearing No. CS-580-2024 tled “Sandeep Chaudhari vs. Kailash Chand etc.”. He is aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby his request to allow him to refund the earnest money to the respondent- plainff, was declined. 2. Concededly the peoner-defendant agreed to sell suit property to the plainff-respondent for consideraon of ₹3,61,75,000/- vide an agreement dated 27.01.2023, and he received an amount of ₹61,75,000/- as earnest money. 3. Contending that defendant failed to abide by the terms of the agreement despite readiness & willingness of the plainff to perform his part of contract, suit for mandatory injuncon, specific performance and permanent injuncon was filed by the plainff with the alternave relief of recovery of ₹3,61,75,000/-. 4. The defendant- peoner herein moved an applicaon NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.26 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6838-2025 -2- (Annexure P-4) making a request to allow him to return the earnest money to the plainff submi<ng that a=er considerable reflecon, he found that it was in the family's best interest to retain the ownership of the house in queson, as his children had developed deep emoonal a@achment to the same and therefore, he wanted to return the earnest money to the plainff. Said request has been declined by the trial Court by way of impugned order. 5. It is contended by learned counsel that plainff-respondent himself had sought the alternave relief of recovery and as the peoner had received amount of ₹61,75,000/-, he is ready to return the same and so, trial Court commi@ed error in declining his request. 6. There is no merit in the contenon. Execuon of agreement to sell by the peoner in favour of the respondent-plainff is not disputed. It cannot be sweet will of the peoner to unilaterally retract from the said agreement. He is bound by the terms and condions of the agreement. Simply because an alternave prayer was made by the plainff for recovery, cannot be construed as a waiver or abandonment of the main relief of the specific performance on the part of the plainff. 7. As such, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. No merits. Dismissed. All the miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 25, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.26 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document