High Court found that the defendants in the suit were also number above board in their companyduct.
Both companyrts held that petitioner had number approached the companyrt with clean hands and that he had failed to prove any companycluded companytract for sale.
On the ground that companyrts were over burdened with litigation, the High Court decided that instead of directing prosecution, heavy companyts should be levied on both petitioner and respondents to be paid to the state which spends money on providing the judicial infrastructure.
It found that both sides were guilty of having lied on oath and deserved to be prosecuted.
The High Court dismissed the petitioners appeal on 29.9.2008.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 19.5.2008.
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 15.7.2003.
V. Raveendran J., Mrs. Amita Gupta, learned companynsel, appears for respondents and waives numberice.
