##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

108 CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025

Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026 Gursimranjit Singh @ Shammi …..Appellant

Vs.

Lakhvir Singh and Another .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Raminder Singh Joon, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. (through VC).

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-4269-C-2026:

This is an applica%on for restora%on of the main case i.e. RSA-

4451-2025, which was dismissed in default for want of prosecu%on on

10.03.2026.

For the reasons men%oned in the applica%on, supported by affidavit of Sh. Raminder Singh Joon, Advocate for the appellant, the applica%on is allowed. Order dated 10.03.2026 is recalled. Main case i.e. RSA-4451-2025 is restored. It be registered at its original number. Main

case is taken up today itself for actual hearing.

Main case.:

The plain%ff has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal under Sec%on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment & decree dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Addi%onal District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali), whereby the appeal filed by defendant No.2 was allowed; the judgment & decree of the learned trial Court dated 04.07.2018

were set aside, and the suit of the plain%ff was dismissed.

2. The plain%ff ins%tuted a suit seeking decree of permanent

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.18 13:53 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025

injunc%on to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession over a residen%al house situated within the lal lakir/red line area of village Kalewal, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali). A further relief of declara%on was sought to the effect that the earlier judgment & decree dated 27.08.2013, passed in a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.05.2012, were illegal, null and void and not

binding upon his rights.

3. The case set up by the plain%ff was that the property originally belonged to his grandfather Sital Singh, who out of love and affec%on had given possession thereof to him. It was pleaded that a@er the death of Sital Singh, the plain%ff con%nued in possession and had electricity connec%on

and ra%on card at the said premises.

4. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and pleaded that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the property and had entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.05.2012 in his favour. Upon failure of defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed, a suit for specific performance had been filed and decreed on 27.08.2013, wherea@er sale deed was executed

through Court and execu%on proceedings were ini%ated.

5. Defendant N: 1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex-

parte.

6. A@er framing issues and taking evidence led by the par%es, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, in appeal, the learned First Appellate Court reversed the said findings and dismissed the suit holding

that the plain%ff had failed to prove either ownership or possession.

7. Assailing the above reversal, Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing a well-reasoned decree of the trial Court. It is argued that possession of the plain%ff stood established from electricity documents, ra%on card, Local Commissioner’s report and the admission made by defendant No.2 in cross-examina%on that he never asked the plain%ff to hand over possession. It is further

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.04.18 13:53 Page No. 2 of 4 Pages I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CM-4269-C-2026 in/and RSA-4451-2025

submiFed that the decree dated 27.08.2013 having been obtained behind the back of the plain%ff was rightly declared ineffec%ve by the trial Court.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

9. At the outset, it deserves no%ce that the present appeal is a second appeal under Sec%on 100 CPC and interference is permissible only when a subst