JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff Harvinder Singh filed a suit for possession of plot measuring 70 feet x 48 feet (373 sq. yards) (fully described in the plaint), situated at Village Boh, Tehsil & District Ambala (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property') by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 23.02.2003 with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property.

4. The case, set up by the plaintiff, was that the suit property had been purchased by the defendants vide sale deed dated 05.09.1997. An agreement to sell was executed on 23.02.2003 vide which the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. '35,000/- was paid as earnest money and the date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 03.05.2004. Certain terms and conditions were also laid down which included the completion of papers including jamabandi and mutation after which the sale deed was to be registered. However, as the land was not demarcated nor mutation was entered, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 31.05.2004. Since the documents had not been completed, a legal notice was served upon the defendants and as the sale deed was not executed even thereafter, the suit was filed. It was also averred that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and had sufficient funds to get the sale deed executed but the defendants backed out. It would be relevant to mention here that the plaint lacked essential particulars, for, the total sale consideration was not mentioned in the plaint nor was the date of execution of the agreement to sell mentioned in the body of the plaint, though, it had been mentioned in the heading and prayer of the plaint. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the plaint lacked material particulars and if one was to go strictly by law, no evidence beyond these pleadings could have been permitted.

5. Be that as it may, the suit was opposed by the defendants. The basic stand which was taken was that the agreement to sell did not subsist as the plaintiff had not come forward for the execution of the sale deed on the relevant date as he was not possessing sufficient funds for the same. It was averred that the defendants had remained present at the office of Sub-Registrar, Ambala Cantt. for execution of the sale deed on 31.05.2004 but the plaintiff did not appear. The defendants then approached the plaintiff who sought 15 days time for execution of the sale deed which was verbally given to him and 16.06.2004 was fixed for the execution of the sale deed. On this date also, the defendants remained present before the Sub-Registrar, Ambala Cantt. but the plaintiff did not appear. Accordingly, notice dated 18.06.2004 was issued to the plaintiff and 12 more days were granted to him till 30.06.2004 for paying the balance sale consideration which was also not done despite the notice having been received. It was averred that the total sale consideration was Rs. 4,61,000/- and only a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as earnest money had been paid and balance amount of Rs. 4,26,000/- was to be paid.

6. It was averred that the suit had been filed only to harass the defendants since as per the agreement to sell, the rate was fixed as Rs. 1235/- per square yard whereas the market value of the suit property at the time of the filing of the suit was more than '3,000/- per square yard.

7. Replication wa