The High Court's jurisdiction in second appeal is limited to errors in law or procedure and does not extend to re-examining or re-appreciating facts settled by the lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. These appeals challenge the judgment dated 3rd March 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal Nos.1206 and 1207 of 2005, thereby allowing the appeals filed by the respondents-defendants challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees dated 3rd January 2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in RBT 329/90/2000, and 8th February 2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Court”) in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2001. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that, if the plaintiff desires to get the sale deed executed pursuant to the agreement(s) to sell, he would do so by paying the present prevalent market value as sale consideration. The appellant-plaintiff has also assailed the order dated 10th April 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, thereby dismissing the review applications being R.A. No. 19-C of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 1206 of 2005 and R.A. No. 18-C of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 1207 of 2005, filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under :

The appellant-plaintiff through its partner Raj Kumar, entered into an agreement to sell dated 29th October 1983 with the respondents-defendants No. 1 to 4 with regard to the suit property, which was situated in the revenue estate of Chak Salarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (U.P.), at the rate of Rs.2900/- per Bigha. Though the suit property initially was in the State of U.P., vide notification of the Central Government dated 15th September 1983, it became a part of the State of Haryana. At the time of agreement to sell dated 29th October 1983, earnest amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the appellant-plaintiff to the respondents-defendants.

3. Due to a dispute between the State of U.P. and Haryana, the aforesaid sale deed could not be executed in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Therefore, another agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 23rd August 1985. At the time of execution of the said agreement, an additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the appellant-plaintiff to the respondents-defendants. It is not in dispute that the total amount payable as per the terms of the agreement to sell dated 29th October 1983 was Rs.1,65,000/- out of which, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was duly received by the respondents-defendants on or before 23rd August 1985. As per the terms of the agreement(s) to sell, the remaining sale price was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of execution and registration of sale deed. It is not in dispute that the physical possession of the suit property was also delivered to the appellant-plaintiff by the respondents-defendants at the time of execution of the agreement(s) to sell. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-plaintiff is thereafter in continuous possession of the suit property.

4. As per the terms of the agreement(s) to sell, the respondents-defendants were required to obtain Income-Tax Clearance (for short “ITC”) Certificate and to also get the revenue records mutated to show them as the owners inasmuch as the Central Government was shown as the owner mistakenly. The agreement to sell further stipulated that, in case of default by the respondents-defendants, the appellant-plaintiff was at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered.

5. After coming to know that the respondents-defendants were trying to create 3rd party rights, the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance with further prayer for permanent injunction as against the respondents-defendants. The said suit was resisted by the respondents-defendants by filing their written statement. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 3rd January 2001 decreed the suit. In an appeal filed by the respond