133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7638-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision : 27.01.2025 Harjit Kaur ..... Petitioner versus Gulab Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ****

Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tuneet Walia, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1 Revision petition arises out of proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Petitioner who was arraigned as defendant and was proceeded ex- parte in the suit filed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 15.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) whereby sale deed in her favour has been set aside. The application filed by the petitioner stands dismissed by both the Courts below.

2 Respondent Gulab Singh filed civil suit bearing No.12 dated 16.01.2018 seeking possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.11.2015 qua land measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas. As per the plaintiff, agreement to sell was executed in his favour by defendant No.1 Mangal Singh on the receipt of earnest money of Rs.2,86,000/-. Defendant No.1 agreed to sell land in his favour for consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.7 lakh 20 thousand for 3 Kanals 12 marlas. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 23.11.2015. 2 kanal of land was already mortgaged with defendant No.3 Nazar Singh. Parties agreed to keep mortgage money of Rs.1,50,000/- separately as ‘amanat’ to be paid to defendant No.1. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Baba Bakala Sahib on 23.11.2015, but defendant No.1 failed to come present. The plaintiff later on came to know that defendant No.1 had already sold the land in favour of defendant No.2 on 22.01.2016. In the main suit, thus plaintiff apart from seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance, also sought declaration against the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 Harjit Kaur dated 22.01.2016 to the effect that the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff.

3 Defendant No.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No.1 contested suit. He pleaded that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. He admitted of having received an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and pleaded that he was ready to return the same.

4 Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2019.

5 Instant application was filed by the petitioner-defendant No.2 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC pleading that she came to know of the ex-parte judgment and decree only on 06.09.2019 when plaintiff approached her and threatened to dispossess her.

6 Application was contested by the plaintiff claiming that defendant No.2 came present before the Trial Court personally on 07.02.2018 and opted not to contest the suit, thereafter and was thus proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings the Court framed following issues :-

“1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of possession by way of Specific performance of agreement to sell dated

24.11.2015?OPP

2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for alternative relief of recovery of Rs.5,72,000/-?OPP

3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP

4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD.

5) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

6) Whether the suit is misuse of process of law? OPD

7) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD.

8) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non-

joinder of necessary parties? OPD

9) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

10) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

11). Whether agreement to sell dated 24.11.2015 is a forged and fabricated document? OPD

12)