IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision:-19.12.2025

Inderpal Kaur (Since deceased) through LRs

… Appellant

Versus

Improvement Trust, Patiala through Its Chairman/Executive Officer

... Respondent

****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL

Argued by :-

Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate

for the respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.01.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 03.05.1994 of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Patiala was unjustifiably overturned, most respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short “RSA”). The appellants seek restoration of the decree rightly granted by the Trial Court and appropriate

redress for the substantial miscarriage of justice that has resulted.

1.1. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest perversity, substantial errors of law, and a fundamentally flawed appreciation of the evidentiary record, culminating in a grave miscarriage of justice. The appellant therefore earnestly pray that

this Court be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to reinstate the lawful and well-reasoned decree rendered by the learned Trial Court.

2. The circumstances precipitating the present appeal may be succinctly stated thus:-

“The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Patiala Improvement Trust, from forfeiting the earnest money deposited and from cancelling or resuming residential Plot No. 1082 allotted to her through draw of lots in Shaheed Sewa Singh Thikriwala Nagar, Patiala. The defendant had invited applications for allotment of residential plots vide advertisement dated 20.04.1988, pursuant ₹

to which the plaintiff deposited 4,000/- as earnest money for a 200 sq. yards plot. Although the plaintiff was assured due intimation of the draw, no such notice was ever issued. The plaintiff subsequently learnt that the draw had already been conducted and that Plot No. 1082 stood allotted to her. Upon acquiring such knowledge, she immediately tendered the balance sale consideration, which was unjustifiably refused.

The plaintiff contends that in the absence of any notice or opportunity, the defendant lacks authority to forfeit the earnest money or cancel the allotment, and that any such action would be arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence the suit.”

3. The defendant, upon appearance, filed a written statement asserting due intimation of the allotment to the plaintiff at her recorded address vide letter dated 08.03.1989, which was admittedly not acted upon.

It was denied that the plaintiff’s husband ever visited the defendant’s office, and it was contended that the plaintiff was aware of the draw but wilfully failed to comply with the payment schedule.

3.1. Reliance was placed on Clause 5 of the allotment letter dated 08.03.1989, stipulating that non-completion of formalities within 30 days would entail cancellation of the allotment, pursuant to which the Trust lawfully resumed the plot. A general notice of the draw was also stated to have been published in ‘Jagbani Newspaper’ dated 10.03.1989. The defendant justified forfeiture of earnest money and resumption of the plot as valid and lawful, and further raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit for want of exemption under Section 98(4) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, while denying all other averments in the plaint.

4. Upon a thorough examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both parties, the Court framed the following issues for adjudication, with a view to securing a precise and comprehensive determination of their respective claims and defences, as set out below:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the dec