Back
2025 Supreme(P&H) 1747
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Virinder Aggarwal, J.
SSHL Developers LLP and Another - Petitioners
Versus
RSHL Residency LLP and Others - Respondents
CR-3356-2025 (O&M), CR-3712-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-09-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate, and Mr. Varun Sandhu, Advocate,
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Bansal, Advocate, Ms. Garima Kansal, Advocate, and Mr. Shadab Ahmad, Advocate, Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Himanshu Malik, Advocate, Mr. Lokinder Singh, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate, and Mr. Rajnish Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Ashutosh Dhankar, Advocate
Appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless proven perverse; the authenticity of contractual obligations must be substantiated with credible evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Revision petitions against an injunction order relating to a contract for sale - Petitioners challenged the decision of the lower court regarding the alleged fabricated agreement to sell, claiming no valid reason for overturning the initial order - The plaintiffs alleged readiness to perform while defendants claimed lack of contractual obligations due to the alleged fabrication. (Paras 3, 5, 15, 17)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized the importance of not substituting the findings of the trial court unless found perverse or based on misrepresentation of facts, stressing a rigorous examination of material before making appellate decisions. (Paras 12.1, 17.1)
Facts of the case:
The suit concerned a dispute over an agreement dated 04.05.2024 for the sale of property where plaintiffs contended that they fulfilled their contractual obligations while defendants disputed the authenticity of the agreement and alleged earlier alienation of the property. (Paras 4, 4.1)
Findings of Court:
The initial court found the agreement to lack a prima facie case based on financial transactions and control of involved firms, while the appellate court's decision lacked adequate justification to overturn this finding. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: The court addressed whether the lower court's dismissal of the injunction application was justified in light of evidence regarding the alleged agreement's validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court's decision was criticized for exceeding judicial limits, as the lower court's plausible findings were disregarded without valid reasoning, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts should not supplant logical conclusions drawn at the trial level. (Paras 17.1, 17.2)
Result: Revision petitions allowed and the order of the lower court restoring prior findings was reaffirmed.
JUDGMENT :
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .
1. The present common order shall govern the disposal of the captioned revision petitions, which pertain to the same legal and factual controversy. As the parties are identical in both matters and their respective counsel have expressed agreement, the petitions are being decided together for the sake of judicial economy.
2. At the request of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, the factual background, for the purposes of this common order, is being drawn from CR-3356-2025, as it comprehensively sets out the relevant facts. The issues involved in the connected matters being similar in nature, the facts in CR-3356-2025 shall be treated as representative for the adjudication of all the captioned revision petitions.
3. The petitioners/defendants have filed two revision petitions challenging the order dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-18) passed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby the applications filed by the respondents/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure were allowed, setting aside the earlier order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh.
4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 04.05.2024, pertaining to the suit property, which is fully described in the head-note of the plaint. It was alleged that an earnest amount comprising Rs.4,00,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/-, bearing No. 732888, issued from the account of one of the partners of the plaintiff-firm, was paid to the defendants. As per the terms of the agreement, a further sum of 1 crore was to be paid on or before 03.10.2024, failing which the agreement was to stand terminated. The execution of the sale deed was stipulated to take place on or before 22.11.2024.
4.1 The plaintiffs claimed to have remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract; however, the defendants failed to appear on the agreed date. Subsequently, the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.1 had already alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 through three separate sale deeds, bearing Nos. 7063 and 7065 dated 03.01.2025, and No. 7094 dated 07.01.2025.
4.2 Hence, the present suit was filed. Along with the suit, the respondents/plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking an injunction to restrain defendant No.1 and the subsequent purchaser-defendant No.2, from creating any third-party interest in the suit property and from altering its nature during the pendency of the proceedings. 5. The suit was contested by the petitioner. Petitioner/defendant No.1, along with respondents No.3 to 5, filed a joint written statement, denying the execution of the agreement to sell. It was specifically pleaded that the said agreement is a fabricated document, allegedly created by the plaintiff in collusion with the erstwhile partners of petitioner/defendant No.1’s firm, after its takeover by respondents No.3 to 5.
5.1 The receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash as earnest money was also denied. As regards the cheque of Rs.6,00,000/-, it was submitted that the cheque, dated 26.07.2024, was issued from the account of M Rs. Ved Kaur, who had lent the amount to petitioner/defendant No.1 in the ordinary course of business, as per established practice. The said cheque was alleged to have been wrongly and mala-fidely linked to the agreement to sell.
5.2 It was further asserted that petitioner/defendant No.1 had an outstanding liability of Rs.7,65,000/- towards M Rs. Ved Kaur, which included the Rs.6,00,000/- in question. Regarding the alleged payment of Rs.95.50 lakhs by cheque, it was stated that the said amount represents a “unilateral fraudulent deposit.” The cheque in question was dated 16.08.2024 but was encashed only on 12.11.2024. Upon discovering the transaction, immediate steps were taken to reverse it.
5.3 Additionally, it was stated that even before the cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- was encash
