204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 11.02.2025

1 RSA No.3982 of 2000 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Shri Prem Mitter and ors. …... Respondents

2 RSA No.3471 of 2001 (O&M) Prem Mitter ...... Appellant Versus Sukhdev Singh …... Respondent

3 RSA No.31 of 2003 (O&M)

Prem Mitter ...... Appellant Versus Sukhdev Singh …... Respondent

4 RSA No.3929 of 2009 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Jaspal Singh …... Respondent

5 RSA No.2361 of 2024 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Prem Mitter …... Respondent Sukhdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Prem Mitter …... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA-3982-2000, RSA-3929-2009, RSA-2359-2024 and RSA-2361-2024 and for the respondent(s) in RSA-3471-2001 & RSA-31-2003.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate With Mr. Sukhwinder S. Chatrath, Advocate for the respondent(s) in RSA-3982-2000 &

for the appellant(s) in RSA-31-2003 & RSA-3471-2001.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-6813-C-2001 in RSA-3471-2001 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 108 days in re-filing the present appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant-appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Application is allowed. Delay of 108 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-55-C-2003 in RSA-31-2003 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 150 days in re-filing the present appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant-appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

Application is allowed. Delay of 150 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA-3982-2000

1 Mr. Sukhwinder S. Chatrath, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent(s) in RSA-3982-2000 and for the appellant(s) in RSA-31-2003 & RSA-3471-2001 and has filed his vakalatnama(s)

respectively in Court today. The same are taken are taken on record.

2 Plaintiff is in appeal. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.11.1988. Defendant No.1 filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining plaintiff from dispossessing him from the suit land. The two cross suits bearing Civil suit No.455 of 1995, filed by Sukhdev Singh seeking decree of specific performance and Civil Suit No.209 of 1994 filed by Prem Mitter seeking decree of permanent injunction were disposed off by a common judgment.

3 Suit filed by Sukhdev Singh Civil Suit bearing No.455 of 1995 is being taken as the main lis. Facts are being culled out from the same. For convenience parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.

4 Sukhdev Singh-plaintiff claimed agreement to sell executed by defendants in their favour dated 02.11.1988 for a land measuring 66 kanals

12 marlas. It was claimed that the defendants agreed to sell the said land in his favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.2,04,784/- and received an earnest money of Rs.40,000/- with the promise to get the sale deed executed in his favour on or before 28.06.1989. He claims further extension after the defendants claimed that the land could not be transferred in his name. It is also claimed that further amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid and the possession was delivered to him. It is further claimed that the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 31.07.1989. On 31.07.1989 plaintiff appeared before Tehsil Office, Ajnala along with balance sale consideration to get the sale deed registered. However, defendants failed to come present.

Plaintiff got his presence marked.

5 Defendant No.1 again approached plaintiff on 29.09.1989. He represented to the plaintiff that the land could not be transferred in his name and sought further extension. Further extension was granted and an amount of Rs.