RSA-3921-2019 (O&M)

1

2023:PHHC:115623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-3921-2019 (O&M)

Reserved on: 22.08.2023

Date of decision: 01.09.2023

M/s Victor Cycles Private Limited

..Appellant

Versus

Sh.Sarvesh Kumar Jindal

.Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-

Mr. V.K.Jindal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate

Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate

and Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate

for the appellant

Mr. Puneet Jindal, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Malvi Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1.

The correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at

by the courts below while decreeing the suit for possession by way of

specific performance of the agreement to sell, is challenged by the

defendant in this Regular Second Appeal. The agreement to sell was

executed on 07.01.2006 with respect to property bearing MC

No.B.XXXIII 2175 measuring 2425 sq. yards area for a total sale

consideration of Rs.1,31,00,000/-. The execution of the agreement to

sell is not in dispute between the parties, although the defendant claims

that this document was executed as a collateral security for the

repayment of loan. The agreement to sell is scribed on as many as five

non-judicial papers of Rs.50/-. Each page is signed by two Directors of

Rekha Sihag

2023.09.05 16:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA-3921-2019 (O&M)

2

2023:PHHC:115623

the appellant (defendant-Company). It has also come on record that on

06.01.2006 i.e a day prior to the agreement to sell, a resolution was

passed in the Board meeting of the Company authorizing Sh. Revti

Raman Gupta and Sh. Vinay Gupta, Directors of the Company to sign

the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff (Sh.Sarvesh Kumar

Jindal).

2.

As per the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2006,

Rs.20,00,000/- was paid as an earnest money, out of which Rs.2,00,000/-

was paid in the form of a cheque dated 08.12.2005 whereas the

remaining amount of Rs.18,00,000 was paid in cash. As stipulated in the

agreement to sell, the plaintiff paid another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on

15.02.2006 to the defendant-Company and an endorsement was made on

the reverse side of last page of the agreement to sell, which was again

signed by both the Directors. On 01.08.2006, another sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was paid against a similar endorsement, which was again

signed by both the Directors. It has also come on record that in the

balance sheet of the appellant-Company, a receipt of Rs.30,00,000/- as

an earnest money for sale of the suit property is duly recorded. The

appellant, while filing the written statement, has denied the passing of

the resolution and pleaded that there was no intention to sell. As per the

agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed on or before

31.03.2006. The appellant has stated that they received a loan of Rs.2 ,

00,000 on 08.12.2005. Another sum of Rs.8,00,000 was received on the

same day whereas on 03.12.2005, the appellant received Rs.4,00,000, on

Rekha Sihag

2023.09.05 16:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

RSA-3921-2019 (O&M)

3

2023:PHHC:115623

17.12.2005, Rs.2,00,000, on 22.12.2005 Rs.2,00,000 and on 24.12.2005

Rs.2 ,00,000 was paid.

3.

It has come on record that the appellant-Company is a

Private Ltd. Company run by Sh. Revti Raman Gupta, his wife and son.

Both the courts have found that the agreement to sell is proved.

4.

Provisionally the plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for

the grant of decree of permanent injunction dated 18.11.2006, which was

withdrawn on 24.04.2007.

5.

An application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for permission

to lead the additional evidence in order to produce certified copy of the

plaint of the previous suit filed by the respondents for grant of decree of

permanent injunction, f