Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 215 RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Roopa Mehra @ Rukmani ...Appellant(s) Vs. Shyam Bhardwaj ...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the respondent. ****** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Defendant is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit -led by the plain.//respondent for speci-c performance, has been decreed by the First Appellate Court for speci-c performance. 2. The pleaded case of the plain.//respondent is that the defendant, being owner in possession of the suit house had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 21.11.2005 with the plain./ for a total sale considera.on of Rs.2 lacs. At the .me of execu.on of agreement, the plain./ alleged to have paid ₹10,000/– to the defendant in cash as earnest amount. A further payment of ₹40,000 in cash and ₹1,00,000 is alleged to have been made to the defendant at .me of execu.on of subsequent Agreement to Sell on 16.12.2005. In this manner, the plain./ DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 2 - had paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- in separate instalments. Target date for execu.on of Sale Deed was set for 26.02.2006. It is pleaded that as 26.02.2006 was a Sunday and o<ce of Sub Registrar was closed, therefore, plain./ had appeared before Sub Registrar on 24.02.2006 and 27.02.2006 but the defendant had failed to appear and execute the Sale Deed. It was alleged that defendant is threatening to alienate the property in favour of some other person. As such, present suit for possession and speci-c performance of the Agreement dated 21.11.2005, was -led on
07.03.2006. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the par.es, following issues were framed vide order dated 18.09.2006:-
“1. Whether defendant executed agreement of sale dated 21.11.05 in favour of plain for sale considera on of Rs.2,00,000/- and received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money on the same day? OPP. 2. Whether the plain is ready and willing to perform its part of agreement? OPP. 3. If above issues proved, whether the plain is en tled to decree for speci*c performance with consequen al relief of permanent injunc on as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the agreement is result of fraud and misrepresenta on? OPD. 5. Whether the plain has no cause of ac on to *le the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
7.
Whether the plain is estopped by his own act, conduct to *le the present suit? OPD. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 3 -
8. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected u/o7 rule 11 CPC? OPD. 9. Relief.”
4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the par.es, the learned Addi.onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon had partly decreed the suit of the plain./ for recovery of Rs.50,000/- with interest vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010. However, Civil Appeal -led by the plain./ against the above said judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 was accepted by learned Addi.onal District Judge, Gurgaon; and vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011, suit of the plain./ was decreed in en.rety for possession by way of speci-c performance. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. 5. It is inter alia submiCed by learned counsel for the appellant that since the beginning the appellant has categorically denied the alleged Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005. It is submiCed that appellant is an illiterate housewife; whereas the plain./ is her neighbour and is a property dealer. The appellant being a poor lady was in need of some money and had borrowed some amounts from the plain./; at which .me, the Plain./ had obtained signatures/thumb impressions of the appellant on some blank papers; which had been misused by the respondent to fabricate and forge the fraudulent Agreement to Sell. The impugned judgment has been passed while ignoring that in this regard, an F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant against the respondent at Police Sta.on Bandikuin, District Dausa, Rajasthan. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 4 -
6. It is submiCed that learned Trial Court has given clear and categoric -ndings that the plain./ had failed to prove the Agreement in dispute.
The said -ndings are based upon cogent evidence led by the appellant. On the other hand, learned First Appellate Court has reversed the said -ndings without giving any reason. Thus, the various issues framed and the -ndings given by the learned Trial Court have not been dealt with by the learned First Appellate Court, as is required as per law. 7.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Addi.onal District Judge has further commiCed patent error by decreeing the suit while ignoring that the plain./ has sought speci-c performance of two agreements of sale dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 regarding the same suit property. It is pointed out that the -rst Appellate Court has also failed to consider that the typed maCer in the Agreement appears to be -xed on pre-signed papers. This point has not been dealt by the Addi.onal District Judge while reversing the judgement of Ld. Trial Court. On the contrary, the learned Addi.onal District Judge has wrongly shiGed the burden of proving the execu.on of the alleged agreement to sell upon the appellant. Moreover, the -rst Appellate Court has failed to consider that there are di/erent versions about the earnest money and the balance amount. To substan.ate his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the District Court record in detail. As such the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned Addi.onal District Judge deserves to be set aside. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 5 -
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the submissions of the appellant and submits that the defendant has duly admiCed her signatures on Agreement to Sell. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has correctly taken the Agreement to be proved. In any event, execu.on of the Agreement was proved by examining aCes.ng witnesses PW1 to PW3, and the Stamp Vendor as PW4.
9. On a Court query it is clari-ed that occasion to draG the second Agreement dated 16.12.2005 arose as the -rst Agreement dated 21.11.2005 was a handwriCen Agreement. As such, a typed Agreement with the iden.cal terms and condi.ons was prepared on 16.12.2005.
Learned counsel for the plain./ points out that he/plain./ had purchased stamp papers for registra.on of Sale Deed for a valuable sum of Rs.8,000/-; whereaGer, content of the Sale Deed was typed thereupon; whereaGer Defendant had a<xed her thumb impressions on the said Sale Deed also on 09.02.2006. It is contended that Stamp papers were purchased by the plain./ in advance on 9.2.2006 itself prior to target date of 26.2.2006, upon mutual agreement with the defendant. Further, as the target date of 26.02.2006 was a Sunday, plain./ had duly appeared before Sub Registrar on 24.02.2006 and again on 27.02.2006. This is proved from A<davits of ACendance Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. It is contended that admiCed thumb impressions of the appellant conclude the contract; and therefore, the -rst Appellate Court has correctly decreed the suit. 10. It is pointed out that learned Trial Court had duly framed issue No.4 regarding fraud. However, no evidence was led by the appellant DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 6 - in that regard. Conten.on of the appellant that she was not present at the .me of aCesta.on of the Agreement is irrelevant as it is not necessary for her to be present once she had admiCed her signature upon the Agreement. It is submiCed that the witness of the defendant herself namely DW3 Raj Kumar has admiCed that defendant has signed the Agreement. Learned counsel contends that defendant cannot be permiCed to back out the Agreement just because the value of the property has increased. Moreover, the very fact that defendant had a<xed her signatures on Sale Deed dated 09.02.2006 prepared by the plain./ shows that .ll 09.02.2006, appellant was agreeable to execute the Sale Deed; and subsequently, changed her mind. He accordingly prays for dismissal of the present Appeal. 11. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the par.es. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case -le alongwith District Court record in minute detail. I -nd merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 12.
The plain./ has put forth two Agreements of Sale - the same being - Agreement to Sell dated 21.11.2005 Ex.PW1/B; and second Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2005 Ex.PW1/C. It is alleged by the plain./ that vide the said two Agreements the appellant had agreed to sell the suit house to the plain./ for a total sale considera.on of Rs.2 lacs. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that both Agreements contain iden.cal terms and condi.ons in-as-much as the property, total sale considera.on, earnest money, and last date for execu.on of Sale DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 7 - Deed, are same. However, the plain./ has failed to give any sa.sfactory explana.on as to why two Agreements were executed in respect of the same property between the same par.es, for the same considera.on, et cetera. Learned counsel has been unable to give any sa.sfactory or plausible reasons to explain as to what necessitated the execu.on of the second Agreement. The explana.on that the -rst Agreement to Sell was handwriCen and second was typed is unconvincing and does not inspire the con-dence of this Court. As such, in the very -rst instance, the impugned Agreement is shrouded in suspicious circumstance. 13. Furthermore, perusal of the typed Agreement to Sell dated 16.12.2005 Ex.PW1/C (at page 175 of the LCR) shows that the last few lines of the said Agreement have been typed with barely any gap between them. Again, despite repeated Court queries, learned counsel for the respondent has been unable to give any sa.sfactory explana.on for the same, merely saying that such uneven gaps happen. No explana.on has been given by learned counsel for the plain./ to show as to why there was such a small gap in the last few sentences of the Agreement to Sell at pages 1 and 2 thereof.
To my mind, this lends credence to the story to the appellant that her thumb impressions were obtained by the plain./ on blank papers which were later converted into an Agreement to Sell; and last few lines were typed with narrow gap only to adjust the contents of the Agreement, aGer obtaining thumb impressions of the appellant on blank papers. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 8 -
14. Further, the case set up by the appellant in the wriCen statement was that she was in need of money which was given to her by the plain./ at her village, Nihalpura in Rajasthan; and subsequently plain./ had obtained her signatures on blank papers in respect of the said loans. It is very important to note that these averments were denied by the plain./ in his replica.on. However, subsequently, during his evidence, plain./ as PW1 has admiCed that Agreement was got signed at Nihalpur in Rajasthan; whereas aCesta.on was done at Gurgaon; and that the appellant was not present at the .me of aCesta.on of the Agreement. Even stamp paper was purchased by the plain./. These admissions are contrary to the denials made by the plain./ in the replica.on. In this regard, cross examina.on of the plain.//PW1 (at page 343 of the LCR) is relevant, wherein he has stated that: “This is correct that second agreement was executed on 16.12.05 that stamp paper was purchased by me from Tehsil Gurgaon. That agreement is PW1/C was typed by Ghasi Ram, who works as typist. On the agreement there are signature of me and Lala Ram and Ghasi Ram and Rukmani, her husband and one more person. This is correct that agreement was prepared at Gurgaon and her signatures were obtained at Nihalpur.” All these factors support plea of the defendant that she was not aware of the contents of the document and that she had signed blank papers in good faith. 15.
Another glaring discrepancy in the case set up by the plain./ is that as per the Agreement to Sell, the target date for execu.on of capsule cap deed was set for 21.2.2006. However, for inexplicable reasons, DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 9 - the plain./ had admiCedly purchased stamp paper on 9.2.2006 and Sale Deed was executed on 9.2.2006 itself. No reasons have been given for this preponement. Further, in the Agreement to Sell total sale considera.on is men.oned as Rs.2 lacs; whereas in the Sale Deed, sale amount is men.oned only Rs.1,50,000/-. In the Sale Deed, it is wriCen that en.re sale amount has been paid whereas as per the Agreement to Sell only Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid and the remaining was to be paid on 21.02.2006 at the .me of execu.on of Sale Deed. Plain./ himself has nowhere stated in the plaint as to when, where, and in what manner was the remaining amount of ₹50,000/– paid by the plain./ to the defendant. It is also to be noted that it has been contended on behalf of the plain./ that the authen.city of the Agreement to Sell is evident from the fact that the appellant had applied for NOC to sell the suit property to the respondent on 01.02.2006 as evident from applica.on dated 01.02.2006 Ex.PW1/E (at page 161 of the LCR). However, the said document cannot be taken into considera.on as admiCedly, respondent/plain./ has not examined any o<cial of the Municipal Corpora.on to prove the said document. All these discrepancies, in totality surround the Agreement in suspicion and the same cannot be upheld. It is my clear view that in determining the authen.city of an Agreement to Sell, it is necessary to see the intent of the vendor. Which can be determined from the aCendant circumstances.
In the present case, all of the above factors show that there are too many discrepancies and loopholes in the case set up by the plain./; and therefore, surround the Agreements in ques.on with DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 10 - suspicious circumstances. As such, notwithstanding the evidence of aCes.ng witnesses PW1 to PW3, and Stamp Vendor PW4, the Agreement cannot be held to be proved. 16. In these circumstances, it is apposite to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2649307 D/D: 27.9.2024, wherein it is held that:
“27. At this stage, a very crucial fact which is no ceable from the disputed agreement needs to be highlighted. It is not in dispute that the stamp papers were not purchased by the appellant-defendant and rather Amarjeet Singh was the person who purchased the same. The document was typed out in Gurmukhi language and the photostat copy thereof is available on record. A visual overview of the disputed agreement would show that it runs into three pages. The signature of the respondent-plain , and the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant are marked only on the last page thereof. The *rst and second pages of the agreement, do not bear the signature of the respondent- plain or the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant. There exist signi*cant blank spaces at the foot of the *rst two pages below the transcrip on typed out on these two pages. These observa ons give rise to a strong inference for fying the conten on of the appellant-defendant's counsel that the thumb impression of the appellant-defendant may have been taken on a blank stamp paper and the disputed agreement was typed thereon subsequently.” (Emphasis added)
17. It is to be appreciated that onus is -rst upon the plain./ to prove the Agreement beyond shadow of doubt.
It is only thereaGer that DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 11 - onus would fall upon the defendant to prove fraud if necessary. It was keeping in view the above facts that the Trial Court had denied speci-c performance to the plain./; and had partly decreed the suit of the plain./ only for recovery of Rs.50,000/- which was admiCed to have been received by the defendant i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 21.11.2005; and Rs.40,000/- on 16.12.2005. Relevant -ndings of the learned Addi.onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon in para 8 of judgment dated 03.12.2010 are as under: -
“8. The suit has been *led for speci*c performance of agreement, execu on of which is denied and disputed by the defendant. The plain has alleged two agreements, *rst agreement is dated 21.11.2005 under which Rs. 10,000/- were paid and subsequent payment of Rs.40,000/- is also alleged. The subsequent agreement is dated 16.12.2005. A further sum of Rs. 1.00 lac was also allegedly paid. The plain in the plaint has not men oned as to where these agreements were executed. The defendant, however, took the plea that plain alongwith Ghasi and Lallu visited her at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan on 21.11.2005 on their way to Balaji and on seeing her ill and unable to get be>er treatment gave Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, on 16.1.2006 he gave Rs.40,000/- and it was on 16.2.2006 that he asked for some wri ng regarding Rs.50,000/- paid and obtained signatures and thumb impression of plain and her husband on some blank and stamp papers. The defendant, has thus, pleaded that she signed some documents at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan which was denied by plain in his replica on.
However, at the me of evidence plain Shyam Bhardwaj admi>ed that the agreement dated 21.11.2005 was wri>en at defendant's DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 12 - residence and they had gone to Nihalpura on their way to Balaji, The second agreement was admi>edly prepared at Gurgaon and was signed at Nihalpura. He at another place admi>ed that a@er obtaining signatures of defendant there (Nihalpura) it was a>ested at Gurgaon next day. So it has become clear that the plain at the me of *ling of replica on has taken false plea while denying execu on of the agreement at Nihalpura as alleged by defendant in her wri>en statement.”
18. As regards, readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the A<davits of ACendance dated 24.02.2006 Ex.PW1/F and 27.02.2006 Ex.PW1/G produced by the respondent to prove his presence before the Sub Registrar are of no help to him as the plain./ has failed to clarify regarding the balance sale considera.on. It is established posi.on in law that to prove readiness and willingness two ingredients are are required to be sa.s-ed: a) availability of balance sale considera.on; and b) presence in the Tehsil. In the present case, even if case of the plain./ is accepted and it is taken that only ₹50,000/– remain to be paid, plain./ has failed to show availability of the said amount. As already noted above, plain./ has also failed to show as to when, how, and in what manner the amount of ₹1 lakh/– was paid. Plain./ has also failed to clarify as to why in the Agreement, when total sale considera.on is men.oned as ₹2 lakhs, the Sale Deed only men.ons ₹1,50,000/- as total sale considera.on. There is nothing on record that total sale amount was changed upon mutual DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 13 - confabula.on. Thus, suit of the plain./ was correctly not decreed for speci-c performance by the learned Trial Court.
19. Furthermore, another ground on which the decree of the learned First Appellate Court cannot be upheld is that none of the above issues, -ndings, factors have been dealt with in the judgment dated
24.12.2011. The ld. First Appellate Court has decreed suit of the plain./ for speci-c performance only on the ground that the execu.on of Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 stood proved as defendant has admiCed her thumb impressions. However, in holding as above, the learned -rst Appellate Court has ignored all of the above evidence, as also the cogent and comprehensive -ndings of the learned Trial Court. The cryp.c reasoning of the Addi.onal District Judge contained in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment dated 24.12.2011, is as under: -
“15. Learned trial court in the impugned judgment has erred by declining the relief of speci*c performance of contract. It courts will go ignoring an agreement merely on the grounds that the total sale considera on shown in the proposed sale- deed in less then the amount shown in the agreement, then it would certainly create a chaos. Although it is improper, but it is a common tendency prevalent amongst the purchasers that they tend to show less price of the property intended to be purchased. They do so to save the stamp duty, but for that reason a duly executed agreement to sale could not be nulli*ed. Once a person enters an agreement of sale of his land, and executes a deed in this regard, then there should be DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 14 - very e ort for geCng implementa on of said documenta on to its best terms. 16. On account of above discussion on facts & law, this court found that there is merit in the appeal *led by plain .
His suit should have been decreed in en rety by learned trial court. Hence, impugned judgment & decree dated 03.12.2010 passed by learned trial court is modi*ed and instead of decreeing the suit of the appellant only for recovery of money, it is decreed for possession by way of speci*c performance of contract/agreements of sale dated 21.11.2005 (Exh.PW1/B) and dated 16.12.2005 (Exh.PW1/C) regarding the suit property in favour of the appellant/plain and against the respondent/defendant. Resultantly, appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Balance sale considera on amoun ng Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited in the name of court by the appellant in the shape of FDR No.CTD/2 462834 dated 18.12.2009 on account of order dated 04.12.2009 passed by learned trial court. Respondent may withdraw the same. Respondent/defendant is directed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant as per the terms of agreements of sale dated 21.11.2005 (Exh.PW1/B) and dated 16.12.2005 (Exh.PW1/C) within the period of two months, failing which appellant/plain shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of the court. Lower Court record along with copy of judgment be sent back. Appeal *le be consigned to record room a@er due compliance.” (Emphasis added)
20. The impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court is not only non-speaking and does not consider any of the evidence, issues, or other facts raised by the par.es, or -ndings given by the ld. Trial Court as DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 15 - required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC; but even the reasoning adopted is en.rely unsustainable. Reference is made to a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malluru Mallappa v. Kuruvathappa (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1682729; the relevant part of which reads as under:-
“19.
It is clear from the above provisions and the decisions of this Court that the judgment of the *rst appellate court has to set out points for determina on, record the decision thereon and give its own reasons. Even when the *rst appellate court aGrms the judgment of the trial court, it is required to comply with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 and non-observance of this requirement leads to in*rmity in the judgment of the *rst appellate court. No doubt, when the appellate court agrees with the views of the trial court on evidence, it need not restate e ect of evidence or reiterate reasons given by trial court. Expression of a general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would ordinarily suGce.”
21. Reference is made to another judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Venkata Swamy v. H.N. Shivanna (D), (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 939933, wherein it is held as under:-
“Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Sec on 96, Order 41 Rule 31 - First Appeal - Single Judge dismissed the appeals very cursorily and without undertaking any apprecia on of evidence - Held that appeal not disposed of in conformity with the requirements of Sec on 96 read with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Code - It is the duty of the *rst Appellate Court to appreciate the en re evidence and arrive at its own DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 16 - independent conclusion, for reasons assigned, either of aGrmance or di erence - Case Remanded.” (Emphasis added) The relevant para 4 of the abovesaid judgment is as under:-
“4.............The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, reIect its conscious applica on of mind and record *ndings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with the conten ons put forth, and pressed by the par es for decision of the appellate court..........”
22.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I also rely upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmakumari v. Dasayyan (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 664856. Again, in Garre Mallikharjuna Rao v. Nalabothu Punniah (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 417961, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated as under: -
“6. Whatever may be the legal posi on involved in this case, the facts as pleaded and proved before the courts below, are far from being sa sfactory. The respondent/plain who has examined himself as PW-1 has raised mutually inconsistent pleas, as is evident from the pleadings in the plaint wherein he had stated that it has been agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a period of 4 months, however, in his deposi on, he has stated that the sale deeds were agreed to be executed only a@er the expiry of the term of the lease. The agreement to sell has been transcribed on the non- judicial stamp paper, though not registered. Admi>edly, the said stamp paper had been purchased 11 months prior to the date men oned in the agreement for sale. More so, it had been purchased from a di erent place. Further, there is DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-1231-2012 (O&M) - 17 - nothing on record to show as in whose name, the non-judicial stamp paper had been purchased and who had purchased it. XXX XXX XXX XXX
12. The judgment and order of the trial court is based on proper apprecia on of the evidence. The High Court has erred in relying upon untrustworthy, shaky and vague evidence to grant the discre onary relief of speci*c performance in contraven on of the mandate of Sec on 20 of the Speci*c Relief Act, 1963.”
23. No doubt, scope of interference under Sec.on 100 CPC is con-ned to "substan.al ques.ons of law." However, in a case such as the present one interference is called for as the -ndings of the -rst Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, and involve a clear legal error. 24. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned Addi.onal District Judge, Gurgaon is set aside; and the
judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 passed by learned Addi.onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon is restored.
25. Pending applica.ons, if any, stand disposed of. 22.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.01.27 20:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document