In cases of specific performance of contracts, inordinate delay without a plausible explanation can lead to the dismissal of the suit, as it demonstrates the party's lack of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.7.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 1, Moradabad, in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2015, Kamal Kumar Vs. Kunwar Ajay Singh, whereby Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the exparte judgment and order dated 6.12.2014 dismissing the plaintiff's Suit No. 321 of 2003, Kamal Kumar Vs. Ajay Singh, for specific performance of contract, has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant on admission and have gone through the available record.

3. Some relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff Kamal Kumar had filed Original Suit No. 321 of 2003, seeking relief of specific performance of contract of sale against the defendant on the ground that on 13.12.1988 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant and one Kunwar Vijendra Singh for sale of a shop measuring 12-846 Sq. Meter for Rs. 22,000/-as consideration money. A registered agreement to sell was executed by the defendant and Kunwar Vijendra Singh in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant received Rs.10,000/-as earnest money from the plaintiff. The remaining amount of Rs.12000/-was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. In the meantime Kunwar Vijendra Singh died issueless. According to the plaint averments, since 13.12.1988 the plaintiff was ready and willing for the execution of the sale deed of the disputed shop, which was under the tenancy of the plaintiff since the year 1954, as it was taken on rent by the father of the plaintiff and after his death the disputed shop was under the tenancy of the plaintiff. In the plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant, with malafide intention is not willing to executed the sale deed of the shop in dispute in his favour. It was further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff sent a notice dated 22.7.2003 to the defendant through his counsel requesting him to execute the sale deed of the disputed shop and to come to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Moradabad, on 12.8.2003 to execute the sale deed. However, the defendant did not appear before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Moradabad, on 12.8.2003, therefore, the plaintiff had no other option but to file the suit for specific performance of contract.

4. The defendant filed his written statement denying from the plaint allegations. In the written statement, it was stated that the disputed shop was taken on rent by the plaintiff on 1.4.1999 on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. However, the plaintiff since 1.4.2001 did not pay any rent, therefore, the defendant served a registered notice on the plaintiff through is Advocate. The plaintiff thereafter concocted a false story and filed the suit in the court. The alleged agreement to sell dated 13.12.1988 has been fabricated by the plaintiff having forged signatures and thumb impressions of the defendant. On the aforesaid grounds, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed seven issues, out of which Issue no. 1 was relevant, which was to the effect that whether the alleged agreement to sell dated 13.12.1988 is a forged and void document?

6. In support of his case the plaintiff filed documentary evidence including copy of the agreement to sell, copy of the notice and copy of the Attendance Register of the Sub-Registrar's office. In oral evidence the plaintiff examined himself as PW1.

7. However, after filing of the written statement neither the defendant nor his counsel appeared before the trial court, hence the suit proceeded exparte against him and on 6.12.2014 the exparte judgment was passed.

8. The learned trial court after hearing exparte arguments of the plaintiff and on the basis of the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the alleged agreement to sell, on the basis of which the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract, is of the year 19