Rejoinder – Merely for the reason that plaintiff did not opt to file replication did not mean that allegations in the written statement stand admitted

Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:- Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff – Anil Kumar had filed a suit for possession and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs.8 lacs besides craving for grant of permanent injunction against defendants Lakhvir Singh and Harkewal Singh, both sons of Surjeet Singh son of Gurnam Singh, residents of village Bajak, Tehsil and District Bathinda on the assertions that the defendants entered into an agreement to sell with plaintiff on 9.1.2006 regarding land measuring 25 kanals 10 marlas being 1/30 share of 714 kanals 19 marlas situated at village Bajak, Tehsil and District Bathinda, fully detailed in the head-note of the plaint earlier as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and thereafter as per jamabandi for the year 2006-2007; that the defendants had received a sum of Rs.4 lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff; that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the rate of land was settled to be Rs.1,50,000/- per killa of 8 kanals; that written agreement to sell was witnessed by Rajinder Kumar son of Phul Chand and Anil Kumar son of Suresh Kumar besides scribe of the agreement; that the final date for execution of sale deed was settled to be 20.1.2007; that both the defendants had signed the agreement in Punjabi language; that the plaintiff had also appended his signatures thereon; that as agreed upon between the parties, if the plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed and registered in his name upto 20.1.2007, then the earnest money paid by him would be forfeited; however, if the defendants failed to perform their part of contract in execution and registration of the sale deed upto the date agreed, then they would be liable to pay double of the earnest money and plaintiff would also be entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered through process of court of law. According to the plaintiff, he had informed the defendants a day earlier to 20.1.2007 with a request to get the sale deed executed in his favour on 20.1.2007 but to no effect; that the plaintiff went to the office of Sub-registrar, Bathinda on 20.1.2007 having remaining sale consideration amount and money to bear ancillary expenses but the defendants did not turn up; though 20.1.2007 being Saturday was a holiday in Tehsil office, however, plaintiff kept waiting for defendants there for the whole day; that he got his affidavit attested to prove his presence at Bathinda on 20.1.2007; that he had sent a registered notice dated 14.11.2008 to the defendants on 15.11.2008 but in vain; that on 21.1.2007, the plaintiff again informed the defendants that as 21.1.2007 was Sunday, as such both the parties should appear before Sub Registrar, Bathinda on Monday i.e. on 22.1.2007 for the purpose of getting the sale deed executed and registered and defendants promised to do the needful; that again the plaintiff along with remaining amount of sale consideration and expenses for completion of the transaction went to the office of Sub Registrar, Bathinda but defendants were not found to be there, throughout the working hours; that the plaintiff got his presence marked in the office of Sub Registrar, Bathinda by moving an application along with affidavit. According to the plaintiff ,he has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, however, defendants tried to alienate the suit land to some other person. Feeling aggrieved by such conduct of the defendants, plaintiff filed the suit in question against him in the Court of Civil Judge at Bathinda.

2. On notice the defendants had appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the suit alleging that the suit is result of fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated by the plaintiff upon the defendants; that the plaintiff had not disclosed before the Court that he is working as a commission agent at Mandi Gidderbaha and defendants used to sell their crops through the plaintiff; that relations bet