2025:CGHC:56671 Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.03

15:23:50 +053 0 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 92 of 2016

1 - Vinod Agrawal S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, Aged About 41 Years R/o Danteshwari Ward, Ward No. 14, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Plaintiff, Chhattisgarh ... appellant (s)

versus

1 - Smt. Madhulata Shrivastava W/o Manoj Shrivastava, Aged About 42 Years R/o Danteshwari Ward, Ward No. 14, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.... Defendant, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(cause title taken from CIS)

For appellant (s) : Mr. Praveen K. Tulsyan, Advocate along with Mr.

Aishwarya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

Order on Board

20.11.2025

1. The present first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2016 passed by learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 50 A of 2014, whereby the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract dated

19.09.2011 has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the defendant for specific performance of the contract dated 19.09.2011. The civil suit was filed on 04.07.2013 with the pleading that the defendant is the owner and possession holder of the suit house, situated over the land Khasra No. 490/6, area- 02 dismil (872 Sq. Fit), situated at Danteshwari Ward, Ward No. 14, Dongargarh, Dist- Rajnandgaon. The defendant had agreed to sale the said house for total consideration of Rs. 9,25,000/- on 19.09.2011 and out of total sale consideration, Rs. 4,25,000/- was paid as an advance amount and the agreement was executed between them. The remaining amount of sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed and the time of one year was fixed for registration of the sale deed. When the defendant could not executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, despite his repeated request, he served a legal notice on 06.08.2012 but the same was refused to accept and thereafter, he personally contacted the defendant, and then she assured him that up to 17.09.2012, she would get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff. On 17.09.2012, 18.09.2012 and 19.09.2012, he appeared at registration office but the defendant had not come there to register the sale deed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant has failed to perform the contract and ultimately civil suit has been filed.

3. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff and filed her written statement, denied the plaint averment and pleaded that the defendant himself was negligent in execution of sale deed. In between 19.09.2011 to 19.09.2012, she requested the plaintiff many times for registration of the sale deed but the plaintiff evaded every time for the reason that he could not manage the remaining sale consideration. The notice sent by the plaintiff is also a part of his collusion with the postal agency and get it back by an endorsement of refused. She would also submit that the averment of the plaintiff that he was appeared at registration office on 17.09.2012, 18.09.2012 and 19.09.2012 is only to collect the evidence against the defendant, however, there is no such intimation that he had gone there for registration of the sale deed or ask the defendant to get the sale deed registered on that day. The sale deed could not be registered for want of remaining sale consideration and it is the plaintiff who failed to perform his part of the contract and since, the time fixed for registration of the sale deed is lapsed, the plaintiff can not expected that the defendant will register the sale deed in his favour and for non- performance of the contract on the part of plaintiff, the contract itself is revoked. The defendant was ready and willing to p