Sr. No.117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7714-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 31st October 2025 HARBANS LAL CHADHA AND ANOTHER .....…Petitioners versus SANDEEP SIKKA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN Present: Mr. Mayank Sharma, Mr. Avnish Saini, Mr. Vaibhav Kaushik, Advocates, for the petitioners with petitioner-Harbans Lal Chadha.

HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).

2. As per the brief facts, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2022 and sought the relief of permanent injunction. As per the version of the respondents- plaintiffs, the petitioners-defendants agreed to sell their house (suit property), situated in Gurugram, to the respondents-plaintiffs for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,25,00,000/-. At the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell, a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the date of execution of the sale deed was fixed as 31.12.2022.

2.1. It is pleaded in the plaint (Annexure P-2) that the respondents- plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and they are also ready and willing to execute the sale deed in their favour. They have even purchased the requisite stamp papers for a sum of Rs.25,50,000/-. It is further pleaded in the plaint that after the execution of the sale deed, both the parties were willing to execute the sale deed on a prior date i.e. 09.12.2022 and in this regard, an Addendum dated 01.12.2022 was executed inter se the parties. While executing the said Addendum, the respondents- plaintiffs had further paid a sum of Rs.63,22,000/- in favour of the petitioners-defendants. The date for execution of the sale deed was mutually agreed as 22.12.2022 and even on that day, the sale deed was not executed. Thereafter, second Addendum dated 27.12.2022 was executed between the parties, whereby, time to execute the sale deed was extended to 25.01.2023. As per the version in the plaint, the petitioners-defendants did not execute the sale deed and prior to the extended date i.e. 25.01.2023, the petitioners- defendants had sent a letter-cum-notice dated 05.01.2023, whereupon, they sought to wriggle out of the Agreement to Sell dated 08.10.2022 on erroneous considerations.

2.2. It is further contended that by way of sending the letter dated 05.01.2023, the petitioners-defendants had shown their intention of not executing the sale deed on 27.12.2022. In such circumstances, the cause of action has arisen to the respondents-plaintiffs on 05.01.2023 as well as on the subsequent date i.e. 25.01.2023, which was the date fixed/mutually agreed between the parties for execution of the sale deed.

2.3. It is pleaded in the plaint that the respondents-plaintiffs had replied to the said letter dated 05.01.2023, however, Legal Notice dated 09.01.2023 was served upon them by the petitioners-defendants and thereafter, the petitioners-defendants had issued another Legal Notice dated 22.01.2023, reflecting their intention to wriggle out of the agreement to sell. It is the specific case of the respondents-plaintiffs that they had waited till 25.01.2023, that was the date fixed for execution of the sale deed but till then, the sale deed was not executed, as such, the suit has been filed on their behalf.

2.4. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioners-defendants that the said letter-cum-notice dated 05.01.2023 was sent on their behalf.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for specific performance, was liable to be dismissed by the trial Court under Order 7 Rule