1 131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SANJIV KUMAR @ BIRBAL RAM RAKHA SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Ishmeet Singh, HARKESH MANUJA CM-10265-C-2019 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal is MAIN CASE By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2018 and 05.10.2018 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for possession by way of specific performance in the alternate of recovery and the instance of appellant 2. Briefly stating, the appellant to sell dated 27.05.2011 with respondent 5 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No.93/75min Khatauni No.237 bearing Khasra No.43/2 (24 15 marlas comprised in Khewat No.92/75 min Khatauni No.236 bearing CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-10265-C-2019 in/and Date of Decision: SANJIV KUMAR @ BIRBAL Versus RAM RAKHA SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate for the **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) 2019 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 65 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2018 and 05.10.2018 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for possession by way of specific performance in the alternate of recovery and the instance of appellant-plaintiff stands dismissed. Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff entered into agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 with respondent-defendant qua land measuring 5 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No.93/75min Khatauni No.237 bearing Khasra No.43/2 (24-0) and land measuring 13 15 marlas comprised in Khewat No.92/75 min Khatauni No.236 bearing RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 08, 2025 ......Applicant/Appellant ........Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the applicant-appellant. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 65 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 65 days in By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2018 and 05.10.2018 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for possession by way of specific performance in the alternate of recovery and permanent injunction filed at plaintiff stands dismissed. plaintiff entered into agreement defendant qua land measuring 5 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No.93/75min Khatauni 0) and land measuring 13 kanal and 15 marlas comprised in Khewat No.92/75 min Khatauni No.236 bearing (O&M) , 2025 ......Applicant/Appellant This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 65 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 65 days in By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2018 and 05.10.2018 passed by the Courts below whereby, a suit for possession by way of specific filed at plaintiff entered into agreement defendant qua land measuring 5 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No.93/75min Khatauni kanal and 15 marlas comprised in Khewat No.92/75 min Khatauni No.236 bearing TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) Khasra Nos.64/2/2(13-15) comprised in Khewat No.22 Khatauni No.63/a situated within revenue limits of Village Thamangarh Tehsil, Maur, District Bathinda. It was further pleaded that the total sale consideration was Rs. 8,70,750/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money whereas the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on 31.12.2011 being the target date. The appellant-plaintiff pleaded that since the respondent-defendant despite repeated requests failed to execute the sale deed hence, the suit for possession by way of specific performance; in the alternate of recovery of earnest money as well as grant of permanent injunction, alienating the respondent-defendant was filed. 3. Upon notice, respondent-defendant filed the written statement and admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 besides having received earnest money. It was however, pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff did not choose to come forward for the purpose of execution of the sale deed despite repeated requests been made from the side of respondent-defendant thus, failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement dated 27.05.2011 and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court on 28.07.2015:- 1. “Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Courts? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) 7. Relief.” 5. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff while holding that he failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 and thus, was neither entitled for grant of decree for possession by way of specific performance nor even in the alternate for recovery. It was also recorded that in terms of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 (Ex.P-1), respondent- defendant was entitled to forfeit the earnest money. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed in toto. 6. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018, the appellant-plaintiff filed first appeal, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. .Division), Talwandi Sabo Bathinda, hence the present appeal. 7. Impugning the aforementioned judgment and decrees, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that once the execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 as well as the payment of earnest money was admitted by the respondent-defendant, the Courts below went wrong while non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff although, the suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by him within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. 3 years. He also submits that in the given facts, learned Courts below acted illegally while declining the relief claimed by the appellant-plaintiff with respect to refund of earnest money paid under the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 and thus, the same were liable to be set aside to that extent at least. TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. 9. In the present case, though the execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 besides the payment of earnest money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- has been admitted by the respondent-defendant, however, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the appellant-plaintiff could not establish his readiness and willingness to perform in terms of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011, hence no interference is called for. 10. From the facts and the evidence available on record, it can be seen that target date under agreement to sell dated 26.05.2011 was 31.12.2011 whereas, the suit was filed at the instance of appellant- plaintiff only on 24.12.2014 i.e. just 7 days before the expiry of 3 years limitation period envisaged under Article 54 of Schedule II, Limitation Act, 1963. During this period i.e. between 31.12.2011 and 24.12.2014, no notice was ever served upon respondent-defendant by the appellant- plaintiff calling upon him to get the sale deed executed. Even the appellant-plaintiff was found to be false about he having remained present before the Office of Sub-Registrar on the target deed i.e. 31.12.2011 as the same was a public holiday; there being no occasion for appellant-plaintiff to have been remained present there for the purpose of execution of sale deed. 11. In such circumstances, evidently, the willingness on the part of the appellant-plaintiff to perform his obligation under the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2000 was never established on record. Accordingly no interference is called for , especially, when even the relief about refund of TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) earnest money was even declined by the Courts below in accordance with terms of the agreement in question. 12. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made herein- above, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, there being no overlooking of the material available on record, re-appreciation of pleadings and evidence being impermissible, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 08.09.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document