RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2006 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendant) was accepted and suit filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) for specific performance of agreement/Panchayatnama dated 24.06.1991 in respect of suit property, was ordered to be dismissed.

2. Facts which form the backdrop of the suit are that defendant-Gurdev Kaur filed a civil suit on 25.04.1984 against Gurbaksh Singh, father of the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.04.1983 in respect of land measuring 8 kanal. The civil suit was decreed against Gurbaksh Singh vide judgment dated 16.11.1985 Ex.D-1. The appeal filed by the Gurbaksh Singh, father of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.08.1986 Ex.D-3. In the intervening period, plaintiffs filed a suit against their father Gurbaksh Singh and obtained consent decree regarding ownership rights in their favour. Gurdev Kaur filed execution application for execution of decree dated 16.11.1985 Ex. D1, for specific performance of agreement to sell by way of registration of sale deed in her favour. The Executing Court ignored the consent decree in favour of the plaintiffs and executed decree by way of registration of sale deed dated 22.04.1987 in her favour. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed civil suit against Gurdev Kaur-defendant and their father Gurbaksh Singh for setting aside the sale deed dated 22.04.1987 in favour of Gurdev Kaur. During the pendency of the said suit filed by the plaintiffs, agreement/Panchayatnama dated 24.6.1991 is alleged to have been executed between the parties. Defendant- Gurdev Kaur allegedly agreed to transfer suit land in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of Rs.50,000/- on or before 23.08.1991. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed in default on 16.07.1991. The plaintiffs contended that they were ready and willing to perform their part of agreement but Gurdev Kaur did not appear before the Sub-Registrar to execute sale deed and to receive sale consideration, consequently, filing of the suit by the plaintiffs.

3. Defendant-Gurdev Kaur by filing written statement, contested the suit by raising preliminary objections about its maintainability and that it is barred by limitation, by provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 CPC and plaintiffs were stopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit. The defendant further pleaded that agreement is vague and uncertain because no khasra number had been mentioned therein, the same is void and without consideration, result of mis-representation. She specifically denied regarding execution of agreement/Panchayatnama to transfer suit land in favour of plaintiffs for sum of Rs.50,000/-.

4. Replication was filed denying the preliminary objections of written statement and reiterating those stated in the plaint.

5. The learned trial Court framed following issues on the basis of pleadings:-

1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement dated 24.06.1991 as alleged ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the contract dated 24.06.1991? OPP

6. Relief.

6. Initially the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence and suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.1997. The judgment dated 29.05.1997 was set aside by the then learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2001 with directions that the plaintiffs shall be allowed only two adjournments for producing the entire evidence at their own responsibility subject to payment of earlier costs of Rs.3,000/- as had been imposed by learned trial Court.

7. In pursuance of judgment and decree dated 10.10.20