Tarsem Kumar and others vs. Sapna Jamwal and others CMP(M) No. 1394 of 2025 27.04.2026 Present: Mr. Y.P.Sood, Advocate, for the applicants. None for the respondents. CMP(M) No. 1394 of 2025 Respondent No. 1 has duly been served. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, while putting in appearance on behalf of the said respondent on 15.09.2025 sought time to file power of attorney but the same has not been filed till date. Thereafter, the case was listed on 03.11.2025, 08.12.2025, 01.01.2026, and 23.03.2026, however, power of attorney has still not been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. Hence, respondent No. 1 is proceeded against ex parte. The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. As per the averments made therein, it is stated that the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.08.2024 was passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra, H.P. The appeal was filed before the learned First Appellate Court, and thereafter the said Court issued notices for the service of applicants No. 1 to 3. Details of the said notices and the relevant dates have been provided in paragraph 3 of the application. It has been mentioned in the application that Mr. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the applicants on the basis of memo of appearance on 06.08.2022, 31.08.2022, 26.09.2022, and 03.11.2022 in the appeal. On 03.11.2022, power of attorney was filed by Mr. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, along with photocopy of the General Power of Attorney of the applicants, Amit Kumar, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Thereafter, the presence of Sh. K.K. Chaudhary, Advocate, was recorded on behalf of the applicants till the appeal was decided by the learned First Appellate Court. The applicants were not served with notices at any stage of the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, therefore, they were not aware of the pendency of the appeal. Though the applicants had appointed one Amit Kumar as their General Power of Attorney, the said attorney was never instructed by the applicants to engage counsel on their behalf in the appeal, since the applicants were never personally served in the appeal. The applicants were not aware of the passing of the judgment and decree by the learned trial Court till the second week of April 2025, when applicant No. 1 visited Dharamshala. As the applicants have got their landed property in Mohal Civil Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, applicant No. 1 came to know there that an appeal had been decided against them in their dispute with respondent No. 1 pertaining to the sale of land. On coming to know about the said fact, applicant No. 1 apprised applicants No. 2 and 3 about the decision in the appeal. The applicants were taken by surprise, as they were neither aware of the pendency of the appeal nor they were ever served in the same. Thereafter, the applicants made inquiries and applied for a certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court on 10.04.2025, which was supplied to them on 30.04.2025. In view of the explanation given in paras No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the explanation seems to be reasonable and plausible. Therefore, in view of the averments as made in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit and in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed off. RSA No.____/2026 (RSAST No. 39384/2025) Appeal be registered. Heard. Admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court below passing decree for specific performance against the appellants by directing them to execute the sale deed in respect of the land which is not subject matter of the agreement to sell Ext. P-1 are perverse being contrary to the pleadings and Exhibit P-1, hence the same are vitiated ? 2. Whether the decree for specific performance could be passed by the learned First Appellate Court without respondent No.1 seeking any declaration with respect to sale made in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 which sale was effected prior to the institution of the suit and thus, the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court below are vitiated ? List for hearing in due course. Record be requisitioned. Post admission notices be issued to the respondents returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within three days. CMP No. _______2026 (CMPST 39390/25) Application be registered. Execution, implementation and operation of impugned judgment dated 07.08.2024, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in CIS Registration No. 112/2020, shall remain stayed during the pendency of appeal. Application stands disposed off. (Romesh Verma) Judge April 27, 2026 (Nisha)