302 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1531-2022 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Paramveer Singh ...Petitioner Versus Jasmeet Kaur @ Akki ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Ivneet Singh Pabla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

(Through Video Conferencing)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the District Judge, Patiala, whereby an appeal preferred against the order dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura whereby application for restoration of civil suit for possession by way of specific performance was dismissed, has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made that the order dated 09.11.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura be set aside and the civil suit be restored to its original number.

2. The facts of the present case would show that the plaintiff- petitioner has made every endeavour to delay the proceedings in the civil suit, apparently on account of the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff did not have the balance sale consideration.

3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.01.2011 with respect to land measuring 3 bighas, 9 biswas. It was the case of the plaintiff in the plaint dated 27.12.2014 (Annexure P-1), that the total sale consideration of the said land was Rs.1,24,20,000/-, out of which, the plaintiff had paid earnest money of Rs.31 lacs and was to pay the balance sale consideration on 04.01.2012, for which purpose the plaintiff/petitioner had gone before the Sub-Registrar along with balance sale consideration. The suit was instituted on 02.01.2015 which fact is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-7) and which fact has not been disputed before this Court. Thus, the suit was filed just two days prior from the date the limitation period for filing the suit for specific performance would have elapsed.

4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure P-7) would further show that the defendant-respondent had appeared before the trial Court on 26.05.2015 and on the same day, had suffered a statement that she was ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner in terms of the agreement and the matter was adjourned for the said purpose and on 26.10.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff informed the Court that the petitioner-plaintiff needed more time to get the sale deed executed and accordingly, the trial Court adjourned the case to 09.11.2015. On 09.11.2015, no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff before the trial Court but the defendant along with her counsel appeared before the trial Court and she suffered a statement that she was ready and willing to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. Since on 09.11.2015, no one had appeared on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner, thus, the suit was dismissed in default. Order dated 09.11.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Present: None for the Plaintiff.

Sh.R.K.Joshi, Advocate for defendant.

Today defendant Jasneet Kaur suffered separate statement that she is ready to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff. On the previous date she was ready and willing to execute the sale deed but the plaintiff has not turned up to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour.

Case called several times since morning. Neither plaintiff nor any one appeared on his behalf. It is already 3.55 P.M.

Therefore, the present Case stands dismissed in default.

File be consigned to Record room.

Pronounced: Sd/-

Dt.09.11.2015 Gagan Deep Kaur Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rajpura”

5. The facts mentioned in the order dated 27.10.2021, which have been stated hereinabove, are not disputed before