IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.09.2025 Pronounced on : 28.10.2025 Jitender Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Sanjeev ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the Trial Court has been reversed.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance and permanent injunction qua agreement to sell dated 05.04.2024 qua land measuring 08 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Badha, Tehsil and District Palwal as fully described in the plaint. The total sale consideration for the property is stated to be₹23,37,500/. It was averred in the plaint that an amount of ₹1,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money out of which ₹50,000/- was paid in cash and ₹50,000/- by way of cheque. It was further averred in the plaint that the possession had been delivered to theplaintiff-petitionerat the time oftheagreement to sell. Initially the defendant-respondent remained unserved as the Process Server gave a report of refusal. In the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Trial Court vide which the defendant was proceeded against exparte, there is no reference to an affixation having been done in the case of refusal. On 02.08.2024 the plaintiff-petitioner is alleged to have tried to take illegal possession of the suit property, and the defendant-respondent is alleged to have made a call on 112 and moved an application to the SHO, Police Station Sadar Palwal on 03.08.2024. It was only then that the pendency of the suit came to his knowledge. Thereafter, an application was filed for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, which was allowed vide order dated 24.09.2024. Written statement was filed by the defendant-respondent wherein the stand taken was that the suit property was valued for more than ₹2,00,00,000/- and that no cheque was ever received by the defendant-respondent and that the same was deposited by the plaintiff-petitioner directly in the Bank account of the defendant-respondent. It was further the stand taken that no agreement to sell was ever executed andhedid not purchase any stamp-paper.While purchasing the stamp-paper the plaintiff-petitioner had given his own mobile number instead of the defendant-respondent so that the OTP would not reach the defendant-respondent. It was further averred that the photograph which had been affixed on the agreement to sell is a photograph of the defendant- respondent clicked by the plaintiff-petitioner in the car wearing sunglasses and it was not a regular passport-size photograph. Replication was filed to the written statement. Vide order dated 16.12.2024 the interim injunction application was allowed, and the defendant-respondent was restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or creating any third-party interest or from disposing off the property. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by thedefendant-respondent,whichappealwas allowedby the First Appellate Court vide order dated 16.04.2025. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner.

3. The present revision petition was initially filed by some other counsel. Earlier vide order dated 08.05.2025 the application being CM-8880- CII-2025 for preponement was dismissed. Thereafter, a second application being CM-12642-CII-2025 was filed by a second counsel which application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.07.2025. Thereafter, Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate had put in appearance on behalf of the plaintiff-

petitioner and on 14.07.2025 the following order was passed :

“The present revision petition was filed in April 2025. On 23.04.2025 none appeared on behalf of the petitioner since the lawyers were