IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 26.02.2026 RSA No.1547 of 2015 (O&M)

Raj Kumar Mittal ....Appellant Versus Ashoo Arora and another .....Respondents RSA No.1563 of 2015 Ashoo Arora ....Appellant Versus Raj Kumar Mitta and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Pankaj Midha, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-1547-2015 and for respondent No.1 in RSA-1563-2015.

Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-1563-2015 and for respondent No.1 in RSA-1547-2015.

Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 01.03.2018 in RSA-1563-2015.

Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 01.03.2018 in RSA-1547-2015.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

These are cross-appeals arising out of a suit for specific performance.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 02.12.2004 claimed to have been executed by defendant No.1 in his favour whereby he agreed to sell plot bearing No.216 situated at Sector-27, Panchkula in favour of plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,45,000/- over and above the amount already paid by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2.

3. As per plaintiff, he paid an earnest money of Rs.60,000/- to defendant No.1 on the date of execution of agreement to sell. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 02.12.2004. The date was later on extended to 02.05.2005 by mutual consent of the parties. As per the pleaded case of the plaintiff, there arose a dispute with regard to allotment of plot No.216 in favour of defendant No.1. The transaction could not fructify. Defendant No.1 was later on allotted an alternate Plot bearing No.258 in Sector-27, Panchkula in lieu of Plot No.216, Sector-27, vide Memo No.16340, dated 06.7.2007. Defendant No.1 applied for permission to transfer the plot in favor of the plaintiff. The same was granted subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.1,75,200/- with the office of defendant No.2. The amount was deposited by defendant No.1. However, later on defendant No.1 moved an application requesting defendant No.2 to reject the permission to transfer plot in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff claims to have served legal notice, dated 30.01.2008 upon defendant No.1 and thereafter instituted present suit on 29.08.2008.

3.1. Plaintiff claims that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract and prays for grant of decree of specific performance.

4. Suit was contested by defendant No.1. As per defendant No.1, he never executed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is a property dealer by profession and runs his business in the name and style of Basera Properties. Defendant No.2 allotted plot bearing No.216, Sector-27, Panchkula to defendant No.1, but the possession was not delivered. While defendant No.1 was trying to get possession, he came in contact with the plaintiff. On his assurance to get possession of plot No.216, Sector-27, Panchkula, defendant No.1 signed various blank papers, which have been misused by the plaintiff to prepare agreement to sell, in question. Defendant No.1 never executed any agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff. Not only this, plaintiff on the strength of signed blank papers, applied for transfer of plot No.258, Sector-27, Panchkula, in his favour. Once the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the defendant No.1, he immediately requested defendant No.2 not to grant permission to transfer plot in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 denied of having received any earnest money.

4.1. In a separate written statement, defendant No.2 asserted that the plaintiff is a stranger to the plot. It stands admitted by defendant No.2 that earlier plot No.216, Sector-27, Panchkula was allotted to defendant No.1 and later on plot No.258, Sector 27, Panchkula was allotted to him in lieu thereof.

5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance, framing following issu