Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - Appellant filed the instant suit seeking a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.01.2007 with regard to the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property to any other person.

2. As per the averments, the defendant-respondent agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.4.00 lac and received a sum of Rs.3.00 lac and executed the agreement to sell in question in the presence of witnesses. The last date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 04.12.2007. As per the further averments, the plaintiff-appellant requested the defendant-respondent to execute the sale deed in his favour but the defendant-respondent was putting the matter off on one pretext or the other. Rather he was trying to sell the suit property to some other person even prior to the date fixed. Thus the appellant filed Civil Suit No.381 of 2007 against the defendant-respondent and the Civil Court vide order dated 11.10.2007 granted interim injunction against the defendant-respondent from alienating the suit land to any other person. On 04.12.2007, the appellant was present in the office of Sub Registrar, Pehowa along with balance sale consideration but the respondent failed to turn up. The appellant requested the respondent several times to get the sale deed executed but the defendant-respondent was adamant in refusal. Hence, the necessity arose to file the instant suit.

3. Upon notice, the defendant-respondent appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the defendant-respondent neither entered into any agreement nor any earnest money was received by him from the plaintiff-appellant. It was further averred that the question of selling the house by him does not arise as it was the only house available with his family for living. Rest of the averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. No replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated 18.03.2010:

1. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 05.01.2007 with the plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff was and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement in question? OPP

4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

9. Relief.

5. Thereafter, parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The plaintiff-appellant did not adduce any evidence despite availing several opportunities and thus, his evidence was closed by order of the Court dated 21.07.2011.

6. No evidence on the part of the defendant-respondent was led as the plaintiff-appellant had failed to lead any evidence in support of his pleadings.

7. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 21.07.2011 dismissed the suit under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. While dismissing the suit, the trial Court decided issues No.1 to 3 against the plaintiff-appellant observing that he has failed to prove these issues; whereas issues No.4 to 8 were decided against the defendant-respondent being not pressed.

8. The plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.08.2012. Before the low