IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-08.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement:-16.12.2025 Uploaded on:-16.12.2025 Sultan Singh … Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh and others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. S.K. Liberhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Bajaj, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The petitioner has instituted the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly in the nature of certiorari, to quash and set aside the impugned ex-parte interim order dated 29.07.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court, Shahabad, Kurukshetra, along with the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.09.2017 (Ex. A5 and Ex. A6) rendered by the same Court.

1.1. The petitioner further impugns the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahabad, Kurukshetra, whereby the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed, as well as the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. It is contended that both Courts failed to appreciate the irregularities and apparent improprieties surrounding service of summons specifically, the first notice dated 12.07.2016, reported on 20.07.2016 (Ex. R1), and the second notice dated 21.07.2016, reported on 29.07.2016 (Ex. R2), thereby vitiating the proceedings.

2. The essential facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the plaintiff instituted the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.11.2014, along with possession and permanent injunction. As pleaded, under the said agreement, defendant No. 1 agreed to sell 8 kanals, constituting a 160/298 share of the total 14 kanals 18 marlas, forming part of Khewat No. 65 min, Khatoni No. 69 min, Rect. No. 22, Khasra Nos. 10 (8-16), 13/1/2 (0-2), 18/2/1 (2-14), and 18/1/1 (3-6), the last figure having been erroneously recorded as 3-16 due to a typographical mistake. The land stands reflected in the Jamabandi for 2008–09 and is situated in village Bapda, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra (“the suit property”). This agreement was duly attested by Shri I.C. Saini, Notary Public, Kurukshetra, and entered at Serial No. 8131 dated 25.11.2014.

₹

2.1. The agreed sale consideration was 17,50,000 per acre, against ₹ ₹

which the plaintiff paid 6,65,000 in earnest 5,44,000 on 25.11.2014, ₹ ₹

66,500 on 26.12.2014 under the first Majeed Byana, and 55,500 on

23.10.2015 under the second Majeed Byana. The original date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed was 27.10.2015. At defendant No. 1’s request and due to his financial exigencies and personal circumstances, the timeline was extended to 22.01.2016.

2.2. On 22.01.2016, the plaintiff duly appeared before the Sub- Registrar, Ladwa, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., equipped with the balance sale consideration and requisite expenses, but defendant No. 1 failed to attend. The plaintiff marked his presence by affidavit and avers that he has consistently been ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations, whereas defendant No. 1 has unjustifiably evaded execution of the sale deed. 2.3. It is further alleged that, acting mala-fide and in breach of the subsisting agreement, defendant No. 1 executed Sale Deed No. 1947/1 dated 20.11.2015 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 in respect of 8 kanals 16 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 22//10 (8-16). This khasra forms part of the suit property agreed to be sold to the plaintiff, and defendant No. 1 thus lacked any authority to convey it. The said sale deed, executed with full knowledge on the part of defendants No. 2 and 3, is asserted to be illegal and non-binding on the plaintiff’s rights. Despite the plaintiff’s legal notices dated 30/31.05.2016, the defendants failed to comply, prompting the institution of the present suit seeking decree