JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. This consolidated judgment the adjudication of the above-captioned Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter “RSA”) and the Contempt of Courts proceedings (hereinafter “COCP”), each arising from an identical factual and legal matrix. Given the commonality of parties, the coextensive nature of the impugned decrees and petition, and the consent of learned counsels for joint consideration, these matters are being disposed of collectively in the interest of judicial economy, consistency in legal interpretation, and procedural efficiency.

2. At the instance of learned counsel for the parties in both RSA and COCP, the factual matrix for the purposes of this consolidated order has been meticulously extracted from the records of both cases, as it presents the most complete, accurate, and coherent account of the material facts.

2.1. This judgment specifically addresses the RSA filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court was reversed. The Trial Court had partly decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for recovery of Rs.12,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and the present order examines and resolves all connected questions arising therefrom.

3. Briefly stated, the appellant-plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of the suit land, fully detailed and described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. The suit was predicated on the claim that the defendant, on 25.08.1988, entered into a valid and binding agreement to sell the suit land for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- having received earnest money of Rs.12,000/- and undertook to execute the sale deed on 27.02.1989. Despite repeated demands and notices, the defendant failed and neglected to execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement, whereas the plaintiff remained, and continues to remain, ready and willing to perform all obligations under the contract. It is on this factual and legal foundation that the present suit has been filed.

4. The suit was vigorously contested by the legal representatives of the original defendant, Kartar Singh, who were alleged to have collusively suffered a decree in respect of the suit land in favour of Kashmir Singh and Amrik Singh, impleaded as defendants No.2 and 3. Initially, all defendants filed a joint written statement; however, defendants No.2 and 3 subsequently submitted separate written statements, in which they categorically denied that Kartar Singh had ever executed any agreement to sell or received the purported earnest money of Rs.12,000/-. It was contended that the agreement dated 25.08.1988 was fabricated, frivolous, and legally inoperative, having been procured in collusion with the document writer and marginal witnesses. It was further averred that Kartar Singh had already sold 18 Marlas of the land to Ramesh Chand, Surinder Pal, and Jai Kishan by way of sale deed executed on 16.05.1988. According to the defendants, Ramesh Chand, a friend of the plaintiff, visited the house of Kartar Singh and requested execution of a Special Power of Attorney for the purpose of obtaining mutation in his favour, and that on 25.08.1988, Kartar Singh attended the Court complex, at which time, in connivance with the deed writer and marginal witnesses, the plaintiff fraudulently procured the impugned agreement, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,200/- from Kartar Singh, which remained unpaid by Ramesh Chand. Defendants No.2 and 3 asserted that they were lawful owners in possession of 1 Kanal of the suit land by virtue of the decree dated 17.03.1992 passed by the Sub-Judge, Kurukshetra, contending that the subject property of the present suit was entirely distinct from the property under their possession, and that their impleadment as parties was wholly erroneous. They further contende