IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 118 CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:14.01.2026 Jile Singh …..Appellant Vs. Ram Kumar .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manish Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-4464-C-2023: This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of Jile Singh, the applicant, delay of 64 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: The defendant–appellant is before this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit for specific performance filed by the plainff– respondent Ram Kumar was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019, which was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the defendant– appellant on 11.07.2022. 2. The case set up by the plainff was that the defendant, being owner of the suit land, agreed to sell the same for a total sale consideraon of ₹3,85,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 19.09.2016. Out of the total NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) consideraon, a sum of ₹3,10,000/- was paid as earnest money at the me of execuon of the agreement. The balance sale consideraon was agreed to be paid at the me of execuon and registraon of the sale deed, for which 19.03.2017 was fixed as the target date. Since 19.03.2017 happened to be a holiday, the plainff appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar on the next working day i.e. 20.03.2017, remained present for the enre day, and got his presence marked before the Execuve Magistrate. The defendant, however, failed to appear. Claiming connuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and alleging breach on the part of the defendant, the plainff instuted the suit for specific performance on 27.07.2017. 3. The defendant contested the suit by denying execuon of the agreement to sell. It was pleaded that the amount menoned in the agreement was in fact an outstanding loan allegedly advanced by the plainff to the defendant’s father, which stood repaid along with interest, and that the agreement was a result of misrepresentaon. The defendant categorically denied any intenon or agreement to sell the suit property and sought dismissal of the suit. 4. Upon framing of issues and appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court returned a categorical finding that the execuon of the agreement to sell dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.P-1) stood duly proved, and that the plainff had successfully established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court independently re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the findings of the trial Court. 5. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has primarily contended that: a) The plainff failed to prove his connuous readiness and willingness as mandated under Secon 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and b) The plainff did not issue any legal noce prior to filing the suit, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) which, according to the appellant, viates the claim for specific performance. 6. This Court finds no merit in the submissions raised. 7. The execuon of the agreement to sell dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.P- 1) stands proved beyond doubt. The plainff appeared as PW-1 and supported the execuon of the agreement as well as payment of earnest money. His tesmony finds corroboraon from PW-3 Singh Raj Yadav, the deed writer, who categorically deposed that he had scribed the agreement at the instance of the pares. Further, PW-2 Gopal Krishan Sanghi, the Numberdar and one of the aIesng witnesses, unequivocally supported the plainff’s case and deposed that the defendant executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plainff for sale of 02 kanals of land, receiving ₹3,10,000/- as earnest money. 8. Although the defendant examined DW-2 Sheo Ram, another aIesng witness, to deny payment of earnest money, his tesmony does not advance the defence. DW-2 admiIed his signatures on the agreement as well as the endorsement regarding payment of ₹3,10,000/-. His aIempt to explain the endorsement by stang that it was made at the asking of the plainff has rightly been disbelieved by the Courts below, being wholly unnatural and unsupported by any cogent evidence. Once execuon of the agreement and signatures thereon stand admiIed, the onus heavily lay on the defendant to disprove the transacon, which he has miserably failed to discharge. 9. As regards readiness and willingness, the conduct of the plainff clearly sasfies the requirement of Secon 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The plainff’s presence before the Sub-Registrar on 20.03.2017, the very next working day aKer the target date, coupled with geLng his presence marked before the Execuve Magistrate, constutes strong and contemporaneous evidence of his readiness and willingness. The suit was instuted within about four months of the target date, further reinforcing NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) the bona fides of the plainff. 10. The contenon regarding absence of legal noce is also misconceived. There is no statutory mandate requiring issuance of a legal noce as a condion precedent for filing a suit for specific performance. What is material is the conduct of the pares and the plainff’s ability and willingness to perform his obligaons, which stand fully established in the present case. 11. The findings returned by the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on proper appreciaon of oral and documentary evidence. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or substanal queson of law has been demonstrated. It is well seIled that this Court, in exercise of jurisdicon under Secon 100 CPC, does not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent, well-reasoned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 14, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document