IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

235 RSA-458-2016(O&M)

Date of decision: 22.04.2025 Smt. Naraini Devi ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Manoj Kumar ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- None for the appellant.

Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Advocate Bindu Tanwar Advocate Sahil Nehra for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell in dispute, and possession of the suit property, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. At the very outset, it may be pointed out that the present appeal is of the year 2016. At the time of issuing notice of motion vide order dated 10.11.2016, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted stay of the impugned judgments and decrees. Since then, on numerous dates thereafter when the matter was listed for hearing, the case has been SUNENA

2025.04.23 14:38 adjourned at request of learned counsel for the appellant. Even today, none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. Thus, it is clear that neither the appellant nor her counsel are seriously interested in pursuing the matter. As such, the present appeal, being of such old vintage is being heard and decided in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant with the able assistance of the learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiff.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “defendant”

and the respondent as the “plaintiff”.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant was owner in possession of the suit property describable as plot No.1610, Sector 23, Sonepat vide Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2007 (Ex.P1). The defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.21,50,000/-. On 10.12.2007 itself, amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was received by the defendant. The remaining contractual obligations were to be performed on or before 10.03.2008. Another sum of Rs.2 lakh was received by the defendant. As the formalities of obtaining permission from the Allotting Authority/HUDA were not obtained by the defendant, therefore, time for performance of contract was mutually enlarged on 08.03.2008 to 10.04.2008. A further sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of modification; and a SUNENA

2025.04.23 14:38 further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15.03.2008. On 10.04.2008, the plaintiff was ready with the remaining necessary funds and went to office of the Sub-Registrar to get the Sale Deed registered but the defendant did not come present. Thereafter, the plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 29.07.2008 whereby the defendant was asked to perform her contractual obligations on 11.08.2008. However, to no avail. As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 21.08.2008.

5. Vide judgment and decree dated 01.07.2013, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs “...for specific performance of the agreement to sell in dispute and the defendant is directed to execute and get registered requisite sale deed in favour of plaintiff after receiving the remaining amount of the sale consideration, with in a period of three months from today and thereafter handover vacant possession of the plot/house in dispute to the plaintiff...”. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed with costs by the learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2015. Hence, present second appeal.

6. Grounds of the present appeal reveal that it has been pleaded by the appellant/defendant that it has been wrongly held by the learned Courts below that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has been pleaded in Para 7 of the present Grounds of Appeal that “...the Ld. Courts below