IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. RSA No. 2736 of 2007 (O&M)

M/s R.C. Sood & Company Ltd.

…Appellant Versus Indra Sethi …Respondent II. RSA No. 2737 of 2007 (O&M)

M/s R.C. Sood & Company Ltd.

…Appellant Versus C. K. Anand & Anr.

… Respondents Reserved on: 31.10.2025 Pronounced on : 11.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Ms. Shifali Goyal, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This judgment shall dispose of RSA No. 2736 of 2007, and RSA No.

2737 of 2007, which arise out of two separate civil suits but involve common questions of fact and law. The appellant–defendant, a private limited company, is common to both matters, though the plaintiffs–respondents differ in each appeal.

2.1 The subject matter of Civil Suit No. 88 of 2002, which has culminated in RSA No. 2736 of 2007, is Plot No. D-49 measuring 400 sq. yards, situated in the residential colony known as Eros Gardens, near Suraj Kund, Faridabad, developed by the defendant–company. This plot was agreed to be sold by the defendant to Smt. Indira Sethi sometime in the year 1963.

2.2 The companion appeal (RSA No. 2737 of 2007) arises out of another suit bearing Civil Suit No. 89 of 2002, which is concerning Plots No. A-26 (355 sq. yards) and Plot No. B-57 (217 sq. yards) located in the same colony. These plots had similarly been agreed to be sold in 1963 to Smt. Nanki Devi, the deceased mother of the plaintiffs in that suit, namely Shri C.K. Anand and Smt.

Indira Sethi.

3. Both suits were instituted for possession by way of specific performance of the respective agreements to sell. The trial Courts decreed the suits vide two separate but substantially similar judgments dated 04.05.2006. The appeals preferred by the defendant–company were dismissed on

17.05.2007, thereby affirming the findings of the trial Courts.

4. Aggrieved, the defendant–company has preferred the present second appeals. Since the questions of law involved are common to both matters, the facts are being noticed primarily from Civil Suit No. 88 of 2002, which has given rise to RSA No. 2736 of 2007.

5. This RSA No. 2736 of 2007 is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance filed by Smt. Indira Sethi (now represented through her legal representatives) was decreed by the trial Court on 04.05.2006, and the defendant’s appeal was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 17.05.2007.

6. For clarity, the parties shall be referred to by the nomenclature assigned to them before the trial Court. The entire lower Court record has been requisitioned and examined with the assistance of learned senior counsel for both sides.

7.1 Background facts & Plaintiff’s Case :The defendant–company floated a residential colony under the name and style of “Eros Gardens” near Suraj Kund, Faridabad. The plaintiff applied for allotment of a plot in the said colony. The defendant agreed to sell plot No. D-49, measuring 400 sq. yards, to the plaintiff @ ₹25/- per sq. yard. The plaintiff deposited a sum of ₹2,000/- as 20% of the total sale consideration, in terms of the agreed conditions, and a receipt was issued in her favour. She subsequently deposited another sum of ₹2,400/- as further part payment towards the price.

7.2 In the meantime, the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as the 1963 Act) came into force. The defendant–company represented to the plaintiff and other allottees that because of the said Act, it was precluded from transferring the plots until due approval was granted by the competent authority and that the plots could be transferred only after obtaining such approval. Thereafter, the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred