##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.344 of 2024

In

FIRST APPEAL No.15 of 2008

======================================================

Radha Krishna Prasad son of Sri Shivnandan Prasad resident of village-

Mirachak, P.O. Bind, P.S. Asthawan, District- Nalanda

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Ram Bilash Prasad son of Sri Ram Prasad Singh Yadav resident of village-

Chaudhary Tola, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanaganj, District- Patna at present

residing at village- Kanauji, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Manoharpur Kahuara,

District- Patna.

2. Kundan Kumar son of Ram Bilas Prasad resident of village- Chaudhary

Tole, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanaganj, District- Patna at present residing at

village- Kanauji, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Manoharpur Kahuara, District- Patna.

3. Chandan Kumar son of Ram Bilas Prasad resident of village- Chaudhary

Tole, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Sultanaganj, District- Patna at present residing at

village- Kanauji, P.S. Gaurichak, P.O. Manoharpur Kahuara, District- Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Date : 30-01-2026

1. This review application has been filed under

Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) against the judgment dated

21.10.2024 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.15 of 2008

(hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) whereby the

appeal preferred by the review petitioner/appellant was

dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007

passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.35 of 2004

filed by the review petitioner/appellant.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026

2/10

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It appears from the record that the review

petitioner/appellant filed the suit for specific performance of

contract for sale on the basis of agreement for sale dated

25.01.2002 claiming that defendants/respondents failed to

comply the terms of the said contract and avoided the execution

and registration of sale deed, while the plaintiff

(petitioner/appellant) was always willing and ready to perform

his part of contract to pay the balance consideration of money.

As per the defendants, defendant no.1 had received Rs.60,000/-

as advance from plaintiff and executed an agreement for sale

dated 18.09.2001 in his favour for a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/-.

The said agreement was prepared in duplicate, one copy

remained with plaintiff and one copy with defendant. The

further case of the defendant is that he signed the document

dated 25.01.2002 for extension of period believing the words of

plaintiff and he had not received any amount of Rs.60,000/- as

advance from the plaintiff.

4. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit

bearing Title Suit No.35 of 2004 on contest filed by

petitioner/appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated

29.11.2007 wherein it was held that the agreement for sale of

Patna High Court C. REV. No.344 of 2024 dt.30-01-2026

3/10

the suit land between the parties was executed on 18.09.2001

after receiving Rs.60,000/- as advance amount, for consideration

amount of Rs.2,70,000/- for two kattha i.e. at the rate of

Rs.1,35,000/- per kattha and alleged agreement of sale dated

25.01.2002 was indirectly extension of time period of the

agreement of sale dated 18.09.2001 which was done taking trust

under the circumstances whereby inserting the less rate of

agreed consideration amount and accordingly, the agreement of

sale dated 25.01.2002 is not a valid and legal document.

5. The First Appeal No.15 of 2008 filed by the

petitioners herein has been dismissed by this Court vide

judgment dated 21.10.2024. Upon perusal of judgment of the

learned Trial Court, considering facts and circumstances of the

case and materials available on record, this Court upheld the

judgment of