JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. This appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiff agreed to purchase suit land. An agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff on one side and defendant No.1 on the other side. The agreement was executed through defendant No.2 the attorney of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is a non agriculturist and in view of the bar created under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act could not purchase land without prior permission of the State Government. It is alleged that defendants had promised that they would get such permission in favour of the plaintiff. Despite such assurance the defendants did not take any steps to obtain permission. The plaintiff then requested the defendants to execute and provide the necessary documents so that permission could be obtained by him but the defendants did not provide such documents. Notice dated 27.12.2000 was issued by him through his counsel. The notice was replied to by the defendants on 8.1.2001 through their counsel Rajeev Garg. The counsel for the plaintiff again sent a notice to the defendants through their counsel to supply him the documents required for the purpose of obtaining the permission. But again no documents were furnished. As per terms of the agreement of sale the sale was to be effected on or before 31.3.2001. Due to acts of the defendants the agreement was frustrated and the plaintiff got a legal notice dated 19.3.2001 sent to the defendants. The defendants sent reply on 21.3.2001 intimating the plaintiff that they were ready to extend the period of three months but such offer was not acceptable to the plaintiff. The contract has thus been frustrated due to negligence of the defendants. Even otherwise the defendants misguided and misrepresented the facts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore is entitled to refund of earnest money. The plaintiff requested the defendants to refund the amount but they did not. Hence this suit. 3. The defendants filed written statement and thereby resisted and contested the suit of the plaintiff by taking preliminary objection qua maintainability, locus standi, want of cause of action and estoppel etc. The plaintiff therefore is entitled to refund of earnest money. The plaintiff requested the defendants to refund the amount but they did not. Hence this suit. 3. The defendants filed written statement and thereby resisted and contested the suit of the plaintiff by taking preliminary objection qua maintainability, locus standi, want of cause of action and estoppel etc. On merits it was admitted that the land was agreed to be sold and that earnest money of Rs.3,15,000/- was received. It was also denied that the defendants were under any obligation to supply the plaintiff the documents. However, they were ready to assist him and were ready to furnish the documents but the plaintiff himself failed to turn up and to collect the same. The defendants had even offered to extend the time for execution and registration of sale deed for a period of three months but the offer was not accepted by the plaintiff intentionally. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit as plaintiff himself was responsible for not getting the sanction and as per the terms of the agreement the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues inter-se the parties at contest were struck:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.3,15,000/- and interest as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts, conduct and acquiescence, to file the present suit as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether present suit is without cause of action, as alleged? OPD. 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 6. Relief. 5. The learned trial Court on an appraisal of evidence, adduced by the parties at contest decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Now the defendant No.1 has there from instituted the instant Regular First Appeal before this Court, whereby he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned trial Court. 6. The factum of execution of Ext.PW-1/B inter se the litigating parties here at remains uncontroverted. Now the defendant No.1 has there from instituted the instant Regular First Appeal before this Court, whereby he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned trial Court. 6. The factum of execution of Ext.PW-1/B inter se the litigating parties here at remains uncontroverted. In paragraph 3 of Ext.PW-1/B, which stands extracted hereinafter “That the sale deed shall be executed on or before 31.3.2001 in case the purchaser fails to perform his part of contract the amount of earnest money shall stand forfeited and in case seller back out from his promise he shall be liable to pay double the amount of earnest money.” a peremptory mandate stood cast upon the parties thereto to execute a sale deed qua the suit property on or before 31.3.2001 also it holds embodiments qua the failure or refusal of the vendee to perform his part of the obligation constituted therein entailing the sequel of the apposite tender of a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as earnest money to the vendor standing forfeited vis-à-vis the vendor also it holds unfoldments qua on the vendor reneging from his promise recorded therein his being amenable to pay the double of the earnest money to the vendee. 7. Uncontestedly, the sale deed remained unexecuted on or before 31.3.2001. Since 31.3.2001 stood constituted in Ext.PW-1/B to be precisely delineated date whereon it was mandated to be executed inter se the vendor and the vendee, it is imperative to adjudicate whether its non execution ensued on the vendee or the vendor evidently refusing to perform their part of the obligations constituted upon them in Ext.PW-1/B whereupon the ensuing sequel qua the consequences thereof spelt in paragraph 3 would sprout. 8. Be that as it may, the vendee is a non agriculturist whereupon he stood enjoined to preceding the execution of a valid registered deed of conveyance qua the suit property with the vendor obtain the apposite statutory permission under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act from the appropriate Government. The aforesaid permission stood un-obtained whereupon the deadline delineated in Ex. PW-1/B for execution qua the suit property a registered deed of conveyance lapsed whereupon the sequelling effect of its non execution cast in paragraph 3 of Ext.PW-1/B erupts. Here at the respective un-readiness or unwillingness of the vendor or the vendee to perform their respective contractual obligations is enjoined to be determined. PW-1/B for execution qua the suit property a registered deed of conveyance lapsed whereupon the sequelling effect of its non execution cast in paragraph 3 of Ext.PW-1/B erupts. Here at the respective un-readiness or unwillingness of the vendor or the vendee to perform their respective contractual obligations is enjoined to be determined. The vendee though stands enjoined with a contractual obligations to obtain the requisite permission from the appropriate Government for the relevant purpose yet the vendee is to facilitate the vendor in accomplishing his obtaining the relevant permission for the relevant purpose from the appropriate Government. Evidence in personification qua the vendor rendering the apt facilitations to the vendee for his obtaining the relevant permission from the appropriate Government stood embedded upon his promptly purveying the relevant documents to the vendee especially when evident absence of transmission thereof by him to the vendee would preclude the latter to obtain the relevant permission. Consequently it is to be determined whether the vendors efficaciously facilitated the vendee to obtain the requisite permission from the appropriate Government comprised in his on the apposite requisitions/elicitations standing made upon him by the vendee his begetting prompt compliance therewith. Contrarily if evidently the vendor omitted to promptly transmit the relevant documents to the vendee for his holding the requisite facilitation besides empowerment to obtain the requisite permission, the imminent sequel thereof would be qua the vendor showing palpable un-readiness or unwillingness to perform his part of the obligation constituted in Clause 3 of Ex.PW-1/B whereupon he would stand encumbered with the concomitant contractual sequel. 9. Be that as it may, Ext.PW-1/B stood executed on 29th November, 2000. Under Ext.PW-1/C the counsel for the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to provide the documents recited in paragraph 4 thereof. In response thereto under Ext.PW-1/D issued on 8.1.2001 the counsel for the defendants intimated qua the readiness and willingness of the defendants to purvey them the requisitioned documents also it contains a recital calling upon the plaintiff to collect the documents from the office of Rajeev Garg, Advocate, on any working day between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. or between 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. However, as apparent on a reading of Ext.PW-1/E the relevant documents remained uncollected by the plaintiff from the office of Mr. Rajeev Garg, Advocate. Rajeev Garg, Advocate. Also, it is apparent on a reading of Ext.PW-1/G qua the defendants upto 19.3.2001 whereat Ext.PW-1/G stood issued upon the defendants theirs there upto not complying with the request of the plaintiff to purvey him the relevant documents for facilitating him to obtain the relevant permission from the Government. Through Ext.PW-1/L the defendants endeavour to contend qua with the recitals borne on Ext.PW-1/D remaining un-complied with by the plaintiff whereon they contend qua hence with the plaintiff omitting to obtain the requisite affirmative facilitation from the defendants for empowering him to obtain the relevant permission from the appropriate Government wherefrom they espouse qua his evidently showing un-readiness or unwillingness in obtaining it whereupon they canvass qua the sequel of clause 3 of Ext.PW-1/B encumbering the plaintiff. Here at the veracity of the portrayals existing in Ext.PW-1/D where within recitals occur qua the counsel for the defendants through the counsel for the plaintiff requesting the latter to collect the relevant documents from the office of Mr. Rajeev Garg, Advocate, is enjoined to be determined. Initially, Mr. Rajeev Garg counsel for the defendants remained unexamined for unveiling an inference there from whether the plaintiff had complied with the request encapsulated therein. Consequently, for his non examination an inference stands erect qua the defendants standing disabled to contend qua the plaintiff not visiting his office for the relevant purpose enunciated in Ext.PW-1/D also it warrants the erection of a deduction qua the factum of his holding the relevant documents for their onward transmission to the plaintiff being wholly contrived or engineered. It is enigmatic qua though Mr. It is enigmatic qua though Mr. Rajeev Garg under Ext.PW-1/D there under requested the counsel for the plaintiff to beseech the plaintiff to visit his office for the relevant purpose yet he remained unexamined whereas on his examination, he would have purveyed the best evidence qua the factum whether the plaintiff visiting or not visiting his office also it is enigmatic that despite the counsel for the plaintiff since his making the initial request on 27.12.2000 upon the defendants for the relevant purpose, request whereof stood succeeded by a subsequent request made on 25.2.2001 and on 19.3.2001 where within recitals occur beseeching the defendants to directly dispatch the relevant documents to the plaintiff at his residence, yet the defendants omitted to beget strict compliance therewith rather their counsel enigmatically insisted qua the relevant collection being made by the plaintiff from him. The omission of the defendants to directly transmit the relevant documents to the plaintiff triggers an inference qua theirs contriving the factum of the relevant documents standing held by Mr. Rajeev Garg especially when Mr. Garg remained unexamined whereupon alone the efficacy of the aforesaid inference would stand blunted. With PW-1 in his cross-examination acquiescing to the suggestion put to him in his cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendants while holding him to cross-examination qua his along with his father never visiting the office of Rajeev Garg fillips an inference qua the request purveyed by the counsel for the defendants comprised in Ext.PW-1/D qua the plaintiff visiting his office for collecting the relevant documents from him remaining un-acceded. However, even if the aforesaid request remained un-acceded, it would not relieve the defendants to directly transmit the relevant documents to the plaintiff without insisting upon him to visit the chambers of Mr. Rajeev Garg especially when under Ext. PW- 1/E of 25.2.2001 a request was made upon Mr. Rajeev Garg, Advocate, to make a direct transmission of the relevant documents to the plaintiff at his address at Chandigarh. Also if under Ext.PW-1/D of 08/01/2001 the relevant request made there under remained un-complied with by the plaintiff yet with evidently the plaintiff not visiting the chambers of Mr. PW- 1/E of 25.2.2001 a request was made upon Mr. Rajeev Garg, Advocate, to make a direct transmission of the relevant documents to the plaintiff at his address at Chandigarh. Also if under Ext.PW-1/D of 08/01/2001 the relevant request made there under remained un-complied with by the plaintiff yet with evidently the plaintiff not visiting the chambers of Mr. Rajeev Garg since 08.01.2001 upto 25.2.2001, did enjoin the defendants to since thereat hence affirmatively facilitate the plaintiff to obtain the relevant permission from the Government, conspicuously with a hiatus occurring since 8.1.2001 upto the date of issuance of Ext.PW-1/E on 25.2.2001 whereat the relevant documents remained unsupplied by the defendants to the plaintiff nor also even if the plaintiff did not visit the office of Mr. Rajeev Garg at Solan they were yet enjoined to directly transmit the relevant documents to the plaintiff especially when they were aware of his address. Consequently, theirs omitting to directly dispatch the relevant documents at the residential address of the plaintiff renders theirs insisting upon the plaintiff to comply with the mandate of Ext.PW-1/D to beget an inference of the defendants tacitly by deploying a stratagem besides a ploy of the relevant documents being available with Rajeev Garg, Advocate, concerting to consummate Clause 3 of Ext.PW-1/B qua them. In aftermath, obviously they are to be construed to be engineering the frustration of Ext.PW-1/B hence they are to be construed to be evincing un-readiness and unwillingness to perform their part of the contractual obligation rather theirs concerting to given the deadline fixed for the execution of sale deed avail the benefit of Clause 3 thereof. Also theirs in the garb of the consequences of failure of its execution occurring on 31.3.2001 spurring a consequence of theirs holding a right to secure the forfeiture of earnest money theirs hence engineering to secure the relevant benefit. Their concert has to be dis-approbated as tenably done by the learned Court below. 10. Accordingly, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, (Presiding Officer) Fast Track Court, Solan, is upheld. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.