Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77950 (PNJ)

RANDHIR SINGH AND ORS. v. SHANTI AND ORS.

RSA/904/2010 · 2025-05-02

Deepak Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S. No.214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.904 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.05.2025 Randhir Singh and another .....Appellants Vs. Shan1 and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tara Du and Ms. Arshdeep Kaur, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Kuldip S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Suit for specific performance filed by plain%ff – Rajeshwar (now ap- pellant through his LRs) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak on 14.10.2006. The appeal filed by the said plain%ff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 30.04.2009. 2. Against the above-said concurrent findings, the present Regular Second Appeal was filed by the plain%ff through his LRs. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents have been heard. 4. Although Courts below have dismissed the suit on various grounds, but this Court, a8er hearing learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, is convinced that the appeal deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of limita%on. RENU 2025.05.02 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.904 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 5. As per the conceded posi%on, the agreement in ques%on, the spe- cific performance of which was sought, was executed on 26.03.1993 and the tar- get date for execu%on of the sale deed was agreed to be 31.07.1993. No step was taken by the plain%ff as prospec%ve vendee to get the sale deed executed on or before target date or immediately therea8er within the reasonable period. For the first %me, legal no%ce was sent to the vendors for execu%on of the sale deed on 31.03.1997 i.e. much beyond the period when the limita%on had already expired. As such, the suit filed on 28.05.1997 has been rightly held to be barred by limita%on. 6. No merits. 7. Dismissed. May 02, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.05.02 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh