106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-16571 & 16572-C-2025 in RSA-1791-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 24.02.2026 Yunus ....Applicant/Appellant Versus Aash Mohd. and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Naresh Chhokar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-16571-C-2025 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 370 days in filing the application under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC for restoration of the main appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay of 370 days in filing the accompanying application under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC, is hereby condoned.

CM-16572-C-2025 This is an application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 CPC seeking restoration of the main appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Main appeal is restored to its original number and accordingly taken on Board today itself for hearing.

CM-7082-C-2024 This is an application filed under Section 149 CPC seeking permission for making up the deficiency of Court Fee.

In view of the fact that the applicant/appellant has made deficiency in the Court Fee good, the application has been rendered infructuous. The delay in furnishing Court Fee is ordered to be condoned.

Application stands disposed off.

Main Appeal Plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved of the concurrent judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance i.e., the appellant as 'plaintiff' and the respondents as 'defendants'.

3. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 03.12.2005. As per the plaintiff, Aash Mohd. Son of Shadi was the owner of suit land. He agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,80,000/-. As per plaintiff, the total sale consideration was paid to defendant No.1 on the date of agreement to sell i.e., 03.12.2005 and possession of the property was handed-over by defendant No.1 to plaintiff. Plaintiff further claims that defendant No.1 agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff as per his desire. Plaintiff claims to have served legal notice upon defendant No.1 on 29.01.2007 calling upon him to execute sale deed. Further plaintiff claims to have appeared before the office of Sub Registrar, Nuh, on 07.02.2007 and claims that he continuously remained ready and willing to perform his part. However, defendant No.1 refused to execute the sale deed. Plaint was later on amended incorporating challenge to the sale deed, dated 20.06.2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. Plaintiff thus by way of instant suit, prays for setting aside of sale deed dated 20.06.2006 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and prays for decree of specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 03.12.2005.

4. Defendant No.2 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. 5. Defendant No.1 opted not to file written statement.

6. Defendant No.3 in her written statement claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration of Rs.7,39,000/- and claimed that the suit was an act of collusion between plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 to defeat the rights of defendant No.3. As per defendant No.3, defendant No.1 executed agreement to sell, dated 21.02.2005 in her favour agreeing to sell suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,39,000/-. Rs.1,39,000/-

was paid on the date of execution of agreement to sell. Balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- was paid on the date of execution of sale deed i.e., 20.06.2006. As per defendant No.3, plaintiff in collusion with defen