RSA No. 3081 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Charanjit Singh Mohinder Singh & Anr. CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- DEEPAK GUPTA, Charanjit Singh (appellant herein) filed a suit seeking specific performance against defendant Mohinder Singh (respondent herein). The trial Court declined the relief for specific performance but dec of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/ 10.12.2013. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 23.10.2018, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 3. sell dated 09.06.2004 is not in dispute, whereby defendant No.1 Mohinde Singh had agreed to sell 12 bigha to the plaintiff after receiving the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/ 3081 of 2019 Page N: 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT RSA No. 3081 of 2019 Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Charanjit Singh Versus Mohinder Singh & Anr. CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Based upon agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004, plaintiff Charanjit Singh (appellant herein) filed a suit seeking specific performance against defendant Mohinder Singh (respondent herein). The trial Court declined the relief for specific performance but dec of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest vide judgment dated 10.12.2013. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 23.10.2018, thus affirming the findings of the trial Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. As the paper-book reveals that execution of the agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004 is not in dispute, whereby defendant No.1 Mohinde Singh had agreed to sell 12 kanals 14 marlas to the plaintiff after receiving the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH 2019(O&M) Date of decision: 13.05.2025 …Appellant …Respondents DEEPAK GUPTA Based upon agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004, plaintiff Charanjit Singh (appellant herein) filed a suit seeking specific performance against defendant Mohinder Singh (respondent herein). The trial Court declined the relief for specific performance but decreed the suit for refund along with interest vide judgment dated 10.12.2013. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 23.10.2018, thus affirming the findings of the trial Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. book reveals that execution of the agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004 is not in dispute, whereby defendant No.1 Mohinder marlas of land @ Rs.2,25,000/- per to the plaintiff after receiving the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/-. Appellant s Based upon agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004, plaintiff Charanjit Singh (appellant herein) filed a suit seeking specific performance against defendant Mohinder Singh (respondent herein). The trial Court reed the suit for refund along with interest vide judgment dated 10.12.2013. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 23.10.2018, thus affirming the findings of the trial Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts, the present book reveals that execution of the agreement to r per . JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3081 The target date for execution of the sale on which date the balance sale c 4. Registrar and want defendant requested him not to do so, assuring that he will execute the sale-deed after some days. However, defendant did not execute the sale deed even thereafter which compelled the plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 15.11.2004 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed, but in vain. After filing of the suit, plaintiff came to kn already sold the property to defendant No.2. 5. plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. He claimed that he was present in the office of Sub Registrar on 18.10. was non-working day in the office of Sub Registrar and there were holidays on 16.10.2004 and 17.10.2004. However, the plaintiff did not turn up. Defendant got his presence marked by way of an affidavit. Defendant admits that he received a legal notice from the plaintiff but submits that he sent the reply dated 24.11.2004 to the plaintiff through his counsel stating the true facts, but the plaintiff concealed the said reply from the Court. It is further pointed out that de plaintiff did not come forward for getting the sale itself shows that he was not ready to perform his part of the contract. Prayer was according made for dismissal of the suit. 3081 of 2019 Page N: 2 of 4 The target date for execution of the sale-deed was fixed to be 15.10.2004 on which date the balance sale consideration was to be paid. According to plaintiff, he appeared on 15.10.2004 and wanted to get an affidavit attested to mark his presence, but defendant requested him not to do so, assuring that he will execute the ter some days. However, defendant did not execute the sale deed even thereafter which compelled the plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 15.11.2004 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed, but in vain. After filing of the suit, plaintiff came to kn already sold the property to defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 disputed the readiness and plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. He claimed that he was present in the office of Sub Registrar on 18.10.2004 as 15.10.2004 i.e. target working day in the office of Sub Registrar and there were holidays on 16.10.2004 and 17.10.2004. However, the plaintiff did not turn up. Defendant got his presence marked by way of an affidavit. Defendant that he received a legal notice from the plaintiff but submits that he sent the reply dated 24.11.2004 to the plaintiff through his counsel stating the true facts, but the plaintiff concealed the said reply from the Court. It is further pointed out that despite more than two and a half years, the plaintiff did not come forward for getting the sale itself shows that he was not ready to perform his part of the contract. Prayer was according made for dismissal of the suit. deed was fixed to be 15.10.2004 onsideration was to be paid. appeared on 15.10.2004 before Sub- t an affidavit attested to mark his presence, but defendant requested him not to do so, assuring that he will execute the ter some days. However, defendant did not execute the sale deed even thereafter which compelled the plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 15.11.2004 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed, but in vain. After filing of the suit, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 had already sold the property to defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 disputed the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. He claimed that he was present 2004 as 15.10.2004 i.e. target date working day in the office of Sub Registrar and there were holidays on 16.10.2004 and 17.10.2004. However, the plaintiff did not turn up. Defendant got his presence marked by way of an affidavit. Defendant that he received a legal notice from the plaintiff but submits that he sent the reply dated 24.11.2004 to the plaintiff through his counsel stating the true facts, but the plaintiff concealed the said reply from the Court. It is spite more than two and a half years, the plaintiff did not come forward for getting the sale-deed executed which in itself shows that he was not ready to perform his part of the contract. Prayer was according made for dismissal of the suit. deed was fixed to be 15.10.2004 - t an affidavit attested to mark his presence, but defendant requested him not to do so, assuring that he will execute the ter some days. However, defendant did not execute the sale deed even thereafter which compelled the plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 15.11.2004 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed, but in ow that defendant No.1 had willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. He claimed that he was present ate working day in the office of Sub Registrar and there were holidays on 16.10.2004 and 17.10.2004. However, the plaintiff did not turn up. Defendant got his presence marked by way of an affidavit. Defendant that he received a legal notice from the plaintiff but submits that he sent the reply dated 24.11.2004 to the plaintiff through his counsel stating the true facts, but the plaintiff concealed the said reply from the Court. It is spite more than two and a half years, the deed executed which in itself shows that he was not ready to perform his part of the contract. JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3081 6. the part of the plaintiff was lacking for getting the sale terms of the agreement and as such suit and then consequent appeal were dismissed. 7. counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed within limitation; that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and still further proper issues were not framed which cause of the plaintiff 8. length and going through the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions. 9. evidence of record, that plaintiff claimed that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh on 15.10.2004 for getting the sale executed and further claim getting an affidavit attested to mark his presence but not to do so assuring that he will get the sale deed executed. However, perusal of the stamp paper purchased by the plaintiff for affidavit (Ex.P2) revealed that the same had been purchased from Ludhiana the claim of th Ahmedgarh. Not only this, it was further found from the contents of legal notice dated 15.11.2004 (EX.P3) which was admittedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, that he himself had admi 3081 of 2019 Page N: 3 of 4 Both the Courts below found that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff was lacking for getting the sale terms of the agreement and as such suit and then consequent appeal were Assailing the concurrent findings, it is counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed within limitation; that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and still further proper issues were not framed which cause iff-appellant. After hearing learned counsel for appellant at considerable length and going through the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions. As has been observed by the First Appellate Court, based upon record, that plaintiff claimed that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh on 15.10.2004 for getting the sale executed and further claimed that he had purchased stamp paper for getting an affidavit attested to mark his presence but not to do so assuring that he will get the sale deed executed. However, perusal of the stamp paper purchased by the plaintiff for affidavit (Ex.P2) that the same had been purchased from Ludhiana the claim of the plaintiff that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh. Not only this, it was further found from the contents of legal notice dated 15.11.2004 (EX.P3) which was admittedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, that he himself had admi ourts below found that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff was lacking for getting the sale-deed executed in terms of the agreement and as such suit and then consequent appeal were Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed within limitation; that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and still further proper issues were not framed which caused prejudice to the case After hearing learned counsel for appellant at considerable length and going through the paper book, this Court does not find any As has been observed by the First Appellate Court, based upon record, that plaintiff claimed that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh on 15.10.2004 for getting the sale-deed that he had purchased stamp paper for getting an affidavit attested to mark his presence but defendant asked him not to do so assuring that he will get the sale deed executed. However, perusal of the stamp paper purchased by the plaintiff for affidavit (Ex.P2) that the same had been purchased from Ludhiana, which falsified e plaintiff that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh. Not only this, it was further found from the contents of legal notice dated 15.11.2004 (EX.P3) which was admittedly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, that he himself had admitted that he could not come ourts below found that readiness and willingness on deed executed in terms of the agreement and as such suit and then consequent appeal were contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed within limitation; that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and still prejudice to the case After hearing learned counsel for appellant at considerable length and going through the paper book, this Court does not find any As has been observed by the First Appellate Court, based upon record, that plaintiff claimed that he had appeared in the office deed that he had purchased stamp paper for defendant asked him not to do so assuring that he will get the sale deed executed. However, perusal of the stamp paper purchased by the plaintiff for affidavit (Ex.P2) which falsified e plaintiff that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh. Not only this, it was further found from the contents of legal notice dated 15.11.2004 (EX.P3) which was admittedly sent by the plaintiff tted that he could not come JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3081 present before Sub Registrar for getting the sale target date and another date. These facts and circumstances in itself show the lack of readiness and wil his favour in terms of the agreement. 10. registration of the sale 10.05.2007 i.e. more t case the defendant had refused to execute the sale itself and even did not respond to the legal notice dated 15.11.2004, as is claimed by the plaintiff, what stopped the plaintiff to fil specific performance within reasonable time, is unexplainable. 11. ground to disturb the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below holding that pl readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. As such, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 13.05.2025 Jiten 3081 of 2019 Page N: 4 of 4 present before Sub Registrar for getting the sale target date and so he had requested the defendant No.1 to fix some another date. These facts and circumstances in itself show the lack of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to get the sale his favour in terms of the agreement. Not only this, though the target date for registration of the sale-deed was 15.10.2004, but the suit was filed on 10.05.2007 i.e. more than 2 years and 06 months from the target date. In case the defendant had refused to execute the sale itself and even did not respond to the legal notice dated 15.11.2004, as is claimed by the plaintiff, what stopped the plaintiff to fil specific performance within reasonable time, is unexplainable. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no ground to disturb the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below holding that pl readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. As such, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable present before Sub Registrar for getting the sale-deed registered on the requested the defendant No.1 to fix some another date. These facts and circumstances in itself show the lack of lingness on the part of the plaintiff to get the sale-deed in Not only this, though the target date for execution and deed was 15.10.2004, but the suit was filed on han 2 years and 06 months from the target date. In case the defendant had refused to execute the sale-deed on 15.10.2004 itself and even did not respond to the legal notice dated 15.11.2004, as is claimed by the plaintiff, what stopped the plaintiff to file the suit for specific performance within reasonable time, is unexplainable. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no ground to disturb the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below holding that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. As such, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the is held to be devoid of any merit and so the same (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No deed registered on the requested the defendant No.1 to fix some another date. These facts and circumstances in itself show the lack of deed in execution and deed was 15.10.2004, but the suit was filed on han 2 years and 06 months from the target date. In deed on 15.10.2004 itself and even did not respond to the legal notice dated 15.11.2004, as is e the suit for In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no ground to disturb the well reasoned concurrent findings of facts as his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. As such, finding no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the e JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document