JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 passed by II Additional District Judge of Vidisha decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of the earnest money paid in pursuance of the agreement for sale with interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as limited u/s 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The admitted facts are that an agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 26.7.1986 and the plaintiffs-respondents had paid the earnest money of Rs. 35,407/-. The total consideration agreed was. Rs. 50,000/-. When the sale-deed could not be executed within the specified time, the plaintiffs had given a notice on 31.8.1986. In spites of the notice, the sale-deed could not be executed and the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract or in the alternative for recovery of the earnest money paid. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the agreement no doubt was admitted, but due to laches on the part of the plaintiffs themselves, the sale-deed could not be executed and the earnest money paid stands forfeited. The agreement was in two parts. In pursuance of the first part of the agreement, one sale-deed was executed as admitted between the parties. The sale-deed for the second part could not be executed and only for that part when the earnest money of Rs. 28,000/- remained lying with the defendant and was not returned, the suit was filed. The defendant has further pleaded that only for a particular part of the sale-deed could not be executed on account of the fact that the plaintiffs themselves had placed hurdles on that part of the land. On that point, the plaintiff had given a notice on 27.4.1987 in which it was mentioned that if the sale-deed could not be executed, the earnest money of Rs. 28,000/- already paid, be returned back with interest. Neither the sale-deed was executed nor the earnest money of Rs. 28,000/- was returned, hence, the suit was filed. The defendant further pleaded that the second part of the agreement could not be acted upon in view of the laches on the part of the plaintiffs themselves, and therefore, they were not entitled for recovery of the earnest money as well. 28,000/- was returned, hence, the suit was filed. The defendant further pleaded that the second part of the agreement could not be acted upon in view of the laches on the part of the plaintiffs themselves, and therefore, they were not entitled for recovery of the earnest money as well. Issues were framed by the trial Court on this point, and after recording the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no laches on the part of the plaintiffs and the earnest money could not be forfeited by the defendant, hence, the suit was decreed accordingly. Heard Shri K.N. Gupta, counsel for the defendant-appellant, and Shri R.A. Roman, counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs and perused the record. The only point raised in this appeal was as to whether even if there was some laches on the part of the plaintiffs, the earnest money of Rs. 28,000/- paid at the time of the agreement could be forfeited in favour of the defendant or the same could be recovered by the plaintiffs in the suit. The Court had rightly passed the decree for recovery of the earnest money with legal interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as limited under section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed. The parties shall bear the costs of this appeal, themselves.