2026:CGHC:1484-DB Digitally signed by YOGESH YOGESH TIWARI NAFR TIWARI Date:

2026.01.09

18:23:18 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR +0530 Order Reserved on : 19.11.2025 Order Delivered on : 09.01.2026 First Appeal No. 132 of 2016 Sheikh Naim S/o Sheikh Hafeez Kuraishi, aged about 39 years, R/o Khan Dresses Main Road, Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

--- Appellant Versus Smt. Ganga Bai Gupta W/o Subhash Chandra Gupta, aged about 48 years, R/o Village Aari, Post Dongargaon, P.S. Dongargaon, Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

--- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, Judge Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

C A V Judgment

Per Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated

12.04.2016 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned District Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2014, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff, Smt. Ganga Bai Gupta, has been decreed against the present appellant–defendant, Sheikh Naim. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the findings recorded and the decree so passed, which, according to the appellant, are contrary to the pleadings on record, evidence adduced by the parties and the settled principles of law governing specific performance of contracts, the present appeal has been preferred assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and decree with the following prayer :-

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to allow the present appeal and the order Annexure A/1 may kindly be set aside and quashed on the basis of facts and grounds as mentioned above, it is further humbly submitted and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to set-aside the order Annexure A/1 as bad in law and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Any other relief may also be granted in favour of the appellant as it deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the appellant is the owner of land and building situated at Dongargaon bearing Khasra No. 441/5 admeasuring 632 sq. ft., out of which a pakka shop is constructed over 279 sq. ft. and the remaining 353 sq. ft. is open land (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed property”). On 20.04.2012, an agreement to sell (Ex. P/2) was executed between the appellant and the respondent for a total consideration of ₹14,80,000/-, whereunder the respondent paid ₹7,00,000/- as earnest money and the sale deed was agreed to be executed before June 2012. As the respondent failed to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated time, the agreement was renewed on several occasions, lastly on 01.02.2013, fixing 28.02.2013 as the final date for execution of the sale deed; however, even thereafter the respondent failed to perform her part of the contract. The agreement itself disclosed the existence of a tenant in the shop and recorded that the appellant would make best efforts to hand over vacant possession, thereby demonstrating complete transparency on the part of the appellant.

4. Despite this, the respondent neither arranged the balance consideration nor showed readiness and willingness to conclude the transaction, and merely prolonged the matter for nearly two years, during which period the appellant’s immediate financial need was met otherwise and the value of the property increased. After the tenant vacated the shop in November 2013 and the appellant commenced repairs, the respondent filed a civil suit on 28.03.2014 and obtained interim injunction orders. It is the consistent case of the appellant that he was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed, whereas the respondent lacked both intention and financial capacit