127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2025 AJIT SINGH ......PETITIONER Vs.

MUKHTAR SINGH .........RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. Prayer in the present Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby application bearing No. CM/14/2024 in Civil Suit No. CS-976-2021, titled Ajit Singh vs. Mukhtar Singh, for depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as balance sale consideration in Court, has been dismissed. A further prayer has been made that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be permitted to deposit the said sum of Rs.

10,000/- as balance sale consideration in Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff, Ajit Singh, son of Banta Singh, filed a suit for specific performance, seeking a direction to the respondent-defendant, Mukhtar Singh, son of Sohan Singh, to specifically perform the contract arising out of the agreement dated 05.10.2020 by executing a valid and legal sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. It was further prayed that the respondent-defendant be directed to put the petitioner-plaintiff in possession of the said property/land in performance of the agreement to sell, on payment of the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

2.1 In the alternative, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of refund of the amount already paid, along with stipulated damages. The petitioner-plaintiff also sought the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the respondent-defendant from selling, transferring, alienating, mortgaging, leasing, exchanging, or gifting the suit land in any illegal or forcible manner, or in any manner whatsoever detrimental to the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff.

2.2 It is evident from the pleadings in the suit that the respondent- defendant had agreed to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-, and in this regard, executed a valid agreement to sell dated 05.10.2020 in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, undertaking to execute a registered sale deed in his favour by 26.12.2020. On the date of execution of the aforesaid agreement, the respondent-defendant received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as earnest money towards the sale price from the petitioner-

plaintiff and undertook to execute the sale deed on or before 26.12.2020.

2.3 The petitioner-plaintiff was always ready and willing, and continues to remain ready and willing, to perform his part of the contract. On 28.12.2020 (26.12.2020 and 27.12.2020 being holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday), the petitioner-plaintiff went to the Tehsil Office, Sri Hargobindpur, along with the balance sale consideration, but the respondent-defendant failed to turn up. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent-defendant has failed to perform his part of the contract.

2.4 Notice of the suit was duly issued to the respondent-defendant, but he did not appear, and consequently, he was proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 06.12.2022.

2.5 The petitioner-plaintiff, before the lower Court, examined as many as three witnesses and thereafter, upon appreciation of the evidence, the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned lower Court, directing him to deposit the balance sale consideration amount in Court within a period of two months from the date of the decree.

2.6 The petitioner-plaintiff thereafter moved an application seeking permission to deposit Rs.10,000/- as balance sale consideration in Court, but the same was dismissed, vide order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), which is the order under challenge in the present revision petition