1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by 6th District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No.A/19/2014 whereby the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC have been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is plaintiff before the trial court. He is prosecuting a civil suit before the trial court for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the defendants with the pleading that he entered into an agreement to purchase the suit land bearing Khasra No.293/1 and 346/1 total area 0.316 Hect. for total consideration of Rs.29,00,000/-and Khasra No.264 area 0.146 Hect. for total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- and entered into an agreement on 05.12.2013. The said suit lands are situated at village Kasaridih, PH No.18/25, Tehsil and District Durg. Out of the land under agreement, the sale deed was executed on 24.01.2014 with respect to the land of Khasra No.293/1 and 346/1 total area 0.316 Hect. after payment of its sale consideration of Rs.29,00,000/- and the agreement dated 05.12.2013 was partly performed. The plaintiff made repeated request to defendants for registration of sale deed with respect to Khasra No.264 area 0.146 Hect. and on the assurance given by the defendants, he got the sale deed drafted and relevant documents were prepared for execution of the sale deed with respect to land Khasra No.264 Area 0.146 Hect. and remain present in the office of Registrar having remaining sale consideration on 01.02.2014. The defendant No.6 & 8 came there at Registrar Office and asked to complete the formalities of the registration of the sale deed and on their assurance the plaintiff has completed all the formalities and get the sale deed prepared, but the defendants have not turned up for registration of the deed and on 01.02.2014 the sale deed for remaining land could not be executed. From 02.02.2014 up to 05.02.2014 the plaintiff was out of station due to his business work and when he returned back, he served a legal notice to defendants through his counsel. A general notice was also published in daily news paper on 11.02.2014. Thereafter, the defendants replied the notice served by the plaintiff and denied sale agreement executed by them, however, registration of sale deed of other land in favour of plaintiff in part performance of the contract was admitted by them. In the reply of notice, the defendants have disclosed that they have already executed the sale deed of the subject land in favour of defendant No.9 Uttam Chand Surana on 03.02.2014, therefore, the plaintiff has filed the civil suit with the pleading that he being the first person who entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, the defendants are bound to execute the sale deed in his favour. The defendants have not denied the execution of agreement in favour of plaintiff and admitted the part performance also and on the assurance of defendants he got the draft sale deed prepared, but defendants have executed the sale deed in favour of Uttam Chand Surana instead of executing the same in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendants avoided the performance of contract of their part. The plaintiff is having sufficient sale consideration in his bank account and therefore a decree for specific performance of the contract may be passed in his favour.

3. The defendants No.1 to 8 filed their written statement jointly and denied plaint averment. Though they admit execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff with respect to land Khasra No.293/1 and 346/1 total area 0.316 Hect.,but denied execution of agreement with respect to land Khasra No.264 area 0.146 Hect. for total sale