$~56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 1071/2025 MAYA DEVI & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Parikshit Mahipal, Advocate.

versus KRISHAN LAL TANEJA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Bedi, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R

% 27.11.2025 CM APPL. 74456/2025 (exemption)

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed-of.

CM APPL. 74457/2025 By way of the present application filed under section 149 read with section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (‘CPC’), the appellants seek some time to file deficient court fee.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by affidavit, the application is allowed.

3. The appellants are directed to file deficit court fee within 02 weeks.

4. The Registry is directed to bring to the notice of this court any non-

compliance with the directions issued above.

5. The application stands disposed-of.

RFA 1071/2025 & CM APPL. 74455/2025 (stay)

6. By way of the present regular first appeal filed under Order XLI Rule

1 read with section 96 CPC, the appellants impugn judgment and decree dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS DJ No.161/2022, whereby the suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 05.03.2001 and for other ancillary reliefs filed by the appellants (plaintiffs), was rejected under Order VII Rule

11(d) CPC, as being time barred.

7. The court has heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length at the stage of issuance of notice itself.

8. The suit was filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell executed between Krishan Lal Taneja (respondent No.1) and Shambhu Prasad (deceased husband of appellant No. 1 Maya Devi).

9. To be clear, subsequently, another agreement to sell dated 03.05.2011 was also executed between Krishan Lal Taneja and Shambhu Prasad, which latter agreement was however not subject matter of the suit before the learned trial court.

10. Agreement to sell dated 05.03.2001, which was in Hindi, was in the nature of a receipt for earnest money, a copy of which is appended at page 71 of the appeal paper-book. The English translation of this agreement to sell, which translation has also been filed alongwith the paper-book, reads as under:

11. Accordingly, the essential terms of the agreement were that part payment of Rs. 1.5 lacs had been made by Shambhu Prasad to Krishan Lal Taneja against a total sale consideration of Rs. 3 lacs; and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale documents.

12. Most importantly however, the agreement to sell also stipulated the date of execution of the sale documents as being 05.06.2001; and further provided, that if the seller failed to execute the sale documents in favour of the purchaser by that date, the seller would be liable to pay to the purchaser a sum of Rs. 2 lac as penalty; and if the purchaser failed to make payment of the balance sale consideration on or before 05.06.2001, then the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs paid towards earnest money/part sale consideration would stand forfeited in favour of the seller.

13. Arising from an alleged failure of performance on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed a suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.03.2001 and made the following prayers:

“(a) Pass a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff no.1/or plaintiffs and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant to execute and register the sale deed qua the suit property i.e. property bearing no. 2668/8, Gali No.8, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 area admeasuring about 25 Sq. Yard along with Terrace right along with proportionate undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the land underneath with all its free hold rights, titles a