IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 08, 2025 SANJIV KUMAR @ BIRBAL ......Applicant/Appellant Versus RAM RAKHA SINGH ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

CM-10265-C-2019 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned.

MAIN CASE By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2018 and 05.10.2018 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for possession by way of specific performance in the alternate of recovery and permanent injunction filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff stands dismissed.

2. Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff entered into agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 with respondent-defendant qua land measuring 5 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No.93/75min Khatauni No.237 bearing Khasra No.43/2 (24-0) and land measuring 13 kanal and 15 marlas comprised in Khewat No.92/75 min Khatauni No.236 bearing Khasra Nos.64/2/2(13-15) comprised in Khewat No.22 Khatauni No.63/a situated within revenue limits of Village Thamangarh Tehsil, Maur, District Bathinda. It was further pleaded that the total sale consideration was Rs. 8,70,750/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money whereas the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on 31.12.2011 being the target date. The appellant-plaintiff pleaded that since the respondent-defendant despite repeated requests failed to execute the sale deed hence, the suit for possession by way of specific performance; in the alternate of recovery of earnest money as well as grant of permanent injunction, alienating the respondent-defendant was filed.

3. Upon notice, respondent-defendant filed the written statement and admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 besides having received earnest money. It was however, pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff did not choose to come forward for the purpose of execution of the sale deed despite repeated requests been made from the side of respondent-defendant thus, failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement dated 27.05.2011 and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court on 28.07.2015:-

1. “Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the 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 plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Courts? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff while holding that he failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 and thus, was neither entitled for grant of decree for possession by way of specific performance nor even in the alternate for recovery. It was also recorded that in terms of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 (Ex.P-1), respondent- defendant was entitled to forfeit the earnest money. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed in toto.

6. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018, the appellant-plaintiff filed first appeal, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Ju