IN THE HI 253 Radhey Shyam Bansi Lal CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, concurrent jud the suit filed Agreement to Additional Civ dated 23.02.2 said judgment Appellate Cou 2. status before t the responden E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA yam Vs. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Advoc Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jayant Yadav, Advocate Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. *** PTA, J. The defendant is in t judgment and decrees of the lea filed by the respondent/plaintiff f t to Sell dated 03.12.2010, has be l Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Narnaul 02.2015. The appeal filed by the d ent dated 23.02.2015, has been d Court, vide judgment and decree da The parties shall hereinafte ore the learned trial Court i.e. the a dent as “plaintiff”. D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-14989-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA dvocate for cate cate for second appeal against the learned Courts below whereby iff for specific performance of s been decreed by the learned naul vide judgment and decree he defendant against the above en dismissed by the learned 1st e dated 04.05.2018. nafter be referred to as per their he appellant as “defendant” and 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. specific perfo averments tha sell his 800/69 of the plaint Rs.20,00,000/ money. It is n was fixed as writing and th attesting witn property was the agreemen been ready an remained pres execution of t sale considera appear. Thus, registrar, Nan notice dated 1 execute the s 25.4.2011. It i defendant bu Chaudhary on Brief facts of the case a erformance was filed by the r s that on 3.12.2010 the defendant 0/6983th share in the suit property laint in favour of the plaintiff fo 00/- and received an amount o is next maintained that the date fo as 8.4.2011. The terms of the ag d the writing was duly signed by th witnesses. It is further asserted tha as also delivered to the plaintiff on ment to sell. It is also stated th y and willing to perform his pa present in the office of sub-registr of the sale deed i.e. 8.4.2011 along deration and other expenses. How hus, the plaintiff got his presenc Nangal Chaudhary. It is also stated ed 15.4.2011 to the defendant and he sale deed of the suit property . It is further pleaded that the lega t but he did not appear in the off y on 25.4.2011 for execution of th e are thatthe present suit for e respondent/plaintiff on the ant entered into agreement to erty fully described in para no.1 ff for a sale consideration of nt of Rs.9,05,000/- as earnest e for execution of the sale deed agreement were reduced into y the parties in the presence of that the possession of the suit ff on the date of the execution of d that the plaintiff has always part of the contract and he gistrar, on the stipulated day for longwith the amount of balance owever, the defendant did not sence marked before the Sub- ted that the plaintiff sent a legal and requested the defendant to rty in favour of the plaintiff on legal notice was received by the office of Sub-Registrar, Nangal f the sale deed. Therefore, the 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiff got h next maintaine to the defenda plaintiff on 9 notice. It is fu office of Sub did not appear 4. appearance an defendant had that the Agree defendant is possession of execution of A proved his re replication wa 5. issues were 08.02.2012:- ot his presence marked before the tained that the plaintiff sent anothe endant requesting him to execute t n 9.5.2011. However, the defend is further asserted that the plaint ub-Registrar, Nangal Chaudhary on pear. Hence, the present suit. Upon notice the app e and contested the suit on various had executed any Agreement to S greement was a result of fraud and is not bound by the same; it w n of the suit property was delivered of Agreement to Sell. It was further is readiness and willingness to p was filed by the plaintiff. On the basis of pleading re framed by the learned tria - “1. Whether defendantexecuted 3.12.2010 in favour of plaintiff qu 2. Whether the plaintiff has pai 3.12.2010 out of total sale conside 3. Whether plaintiff is/was ready part of the contract? OPP. Page 3 of 10 the Executive Magistrate. It is other legal notice dated 3.5.2011 te the sale deed in favour of the fendant evaded the service of laintiff remained present in the y on 9.5.2011 but the defendant appellant-defendant put in ious grounds by denying that the to Sell in favour of the plaintiff; and misrepresentation; that the it was denied that the physical red to the plaintiff on the day of ther denied that the plaintiff had o perform the Agreement. No dings of the parties, following trial Court vide order dated uted agreement to sell dated ff qua the suit property? OPP s paid Rs.9 lacs 5 thousand on nsideration of Rs.20 lacs? OPP. eady and willing to perform the 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. documentary decreed the 23.02.2015.Th judgment dat Appellate Cou present secon 7. vehemently su and willingnes disputed the r learned trial C prove his case learned coun “Sukhwinder ID#1673443 ID#1597440. 4. If the above issues are to be entitled to the contract on the t agreement to sell dated 3.12.2010 5. Whether suit of plaintiff is not m 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff 8. Whether plaintiff has filed false 9. Relief.” On the basis of the ple ary evidence adduced by the part the suit with costs vide judg The appeal filed by the defend dated 23.02.2015, has been dis Court, vide judgment and decree d cond appeal. Learned counsel for ly submits that the plaintiff had fail gness to perform the contract. The he receipt of legal notice. Even no f ial Court regarding Issue No.3. Thu case on Issue No.3 which is core ounsel relies on judgment of H der Singh vs. Jagroop Singh and 43 and “Ravi Setia vs. Madan Lal a 40. o be proved whether plaintiff is the terms and conditions of the .2010? OPP. not maintainable? OPD ause of action to file the present intiff is time barred OPD false and frivolous suit? OPD pleadings, and the oral and parties, the learned trial Court judgment and decree dated endant against the above said dismissed by the learned 1st ee dated 04.05.2018. Hence, the for the appellant-defendant failed to establish his readiness The defendant has categorically no finding has been given by the Thus, the plaintiff has failed to ore issue of the suit.In support of Hon’ble Supreme Court in and another” Law Finder Doc Lal and others” Law Finder Doc 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. his signatures the defendant that thus, the categorically d accordingly pr 9. opposes the p plaintiff had d the contract. misrepresenta dismissed. 10. 11. perused the ca 12. appellant/defe case on Issue failed to esta contract. I find to the readine 13. the date for e It is next contended that ures on the Agreement dated 03.12 dant have been taken by the plaint the Agreement is the result of fraud lly denied that the defendant signe ly prayed that the present appeal be Per contra learned counsel he prayer made on behalf of the def ad duly demonstrated his readiness act. It is denied that the Agreeme entation. It is accordingly prayed No other argument is made I have heard learned co e case file in great detail. A two-fold argumenthas b defendant. First being that the pla sue No.3 which is the core issue of establish his readiness and willingn find no merit in the said argument diness and willingness of the plaintif As per the Agreement to S or execution of sale deed was fixe hat the defendant never affixed 3.12.2010 and the signatures of laintiff fraudulently. It is alleged raud and misrepresentation. It is igned the Agreement to Sell. It is l be allowed. nsel for the plaintiff vehemently defendant and submits that the iness and willingness to perform ement is a result of fraud and ed that the present appeal be ade on behalf of the parties. counsel for the parties and as been raised on behalf of the plaintiff has failed to prove his e of the suit i.e. the plaintiff has llingness to perform his part of ent as the record amply testifies intiff to perform the contract. to Sell dated 03.12.2010 (Ex.P1) fixed as 08.04.2011. The record 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document irrevocably es Registrar Nan deed. This fac was the defen 14. 15.04.2011to 25.04.2011. O notice dated 0 09.05.2011 wa Subsequent t specific perfor 15. of PW7-Rajesh sent legal not asking of the p legal notice d were duly pro registered env as (Ex.PW7/E) receive the leg 16. benefit from (Supra) as the y establishes that the plaintiff was Nangal Chaudhary on the said dat fact is proved from the affidavit o efendant who was not present. Thereafter, the plaintiff 1to the defendant whereby th On this date also the defendant ed 05.05.2011 was sent to the appe 1 was fixed. The appellant did not nt to this target date the respon rformance on dated 23.05.2011. In regard to the above said ajesh Kumar, Advocate is relevant w notice (Ex.PW7/A) dated 15.04.20 he plaintiff. PW7 has further depose ce dated 05.05.2011 (Ex.PW7/B). proved by the postal receipts (Ex envelope vide which second legal n 7/E). Thus, the contention of the e legal notices is belied by the evide Learned counsel for the om the relied upon judgment in the same is distinguishable on fact as present in the office of Sub- date for execution of the sale vit of the plaintiff (Ex.PW3/B). It tiff sent a legal notice dated the next target date was nt did not appear. Another legal appellant and a fresh target date not appear on this date as well. spondent-plaintiff filed suit for said legal notices, the testimony nt who has deposed that he had 4.2011 to the defendant on the posed that he had sent reminder B). Both the said legal notices (Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D) and gal notice was received unserved the defendant that he did not vidence of PW7. the defendant can derive no t in case of Sukhwinder Singh facts and law inasmuch as in the 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document said case the presence in th counsel can al Setia (supra) case the plain the basis of Whereas, in (Ex.PW3/B) w case no othe readiness and discharge of th The plaintiff has also depo 28.12.2018 be present case willingness to Appellate Cou the plaintiff therein had not submi in the office of Sub-Registrar on t n also not derive any benefit from ra) as the same is distinguishable o laintiff had sought to establish his of a certificate produced by the in the present case the plaint ) which cannot be likened to a ce other evidence was led by the p and willingness, including showing of the balance consideration. In the iff here had duly paid the earnest eposited the balance sale conside 8 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divisio ase the plaintiff has amply demo s to perform the contract. The fin Court in this regard are as under:- “…So far as the readiness and w concerned on the date fixed for th i.e. 8.4.2011 the plaintiff appear and marked his presence by w Pursuant to his legal notice the pl of Sub Registrar on 25.4:2011 affidavits Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3D nothing to show that defendant w registrar on the said dates. The p plaintiff promptly thereafter on 23 bmitted his affidavit proving his on the stipulated date. Learned rom the relied upon case of Ravi le on facts inasmuch in the said his readiness and willingness on them from the Sub-Registrar. laintiff had produced affidavit certificate. Further in the said e plaintiff to demonstrate his ing his continuous capacity for the present case that is not so. nest money of ₹9,05,000/–; and sideration of Rs.20,00,000/- on ivision) Narnaul. As such in the emonstrated his readiness and e findings of the learned lower nd willingness of the plaintiff is for the execution of the sale deed peared before the Sub Registrar by way of affidavit Ex.PW3B. he plaintiff also visited the office 2011 and 9.5.2011 as per his W3D. On the other hand there is ant was also present before Sub The present suit was filed by the on 23.5.2011. Learned trial court 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17. the Agreeme signatures. Th no such plea learned Cour (available at P trial Court in m the signature even in the pre appellant. Mo himself admitt defendant has 18. the agreemen rejected on a learned 1st Ap dated 04.05.2 bears the sign However, I do n that when the his senses. M has correctly held that readiness of plaintiff is duly proved…” It has next been argued on ment to Sell dated 03.12.2010 This argument of the defendant is lea has been taken by the defen ourts below. I have gone throu at Page 137 of the LCR) filed by the in minute detail. There is no plead ure on the Agreement to Sell was n e present Grounds of Appeal no suc Most importantly the defendant d mitted his signatures on Agreemen has been unable to dispute the Agr Even the contention of the ment in question was result of fra n account of the findings and ob Appellate Court in para 8 of the im 05.2018 that “…defendant is drun signature of the defendant the sam I do not agree with the said contenti the agreement was executed the de s. Merely by the bald averments ness and willingness on the part d on behalf of the appellant that 10 (Ex.P1) does not bear his nt is also liable to be rejected as efendant heretofore before the hrough the written statement the appellant before the learned leading therein to the effect that as not of the appellant. In fact, such plea has been taken by the nt during cross-examination has ment to Sell (Ex.P1). As such, the Agreement. f the appellant to the effect that f fraud and misrepresentation is d observations recorded by the e impugned judgment and order drunkard and if the agreement e same were obtained by fraud. tention. There is nothing to show he defendant was drunk or not in nts of the defendant it is not 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document established th agreement…”. himself writte 19. from the evide witnesses of t stated during Agreement to Rs.20 lacs and It was further sale deed w Agreement to correct. PW5 deposed that t already notice earnest mone the Agreemen regarding taki judgment of t identified his s said agreemen further record as on the agre d that his signatures were fraudul t…”. In fact, on the said agreeme ritten about the receipt of the earne Further, the agreement in vidence of PW1-Jagmal and PW2- of the Agreement to Sell. The said ring their cross-examination that t to Sell (Ex.P1) in favour of plaint and had received an amount of Rs her deposed by the said witnesses t was fixed as 08.04.2011 and t to Sell after understanding and a W5-Vikas Gujar Advocate who is scr hat the same was prepared on the i oticed above the defendant has a oney; and has himself written abou ment to Sell. Further the signature taking of earnest money were also p of the Ld. Trial Court, it is record his signatures over the agreement ment was entered into by him. The corded that "The said argument als agreement itself the defendant ha udulently obtained on the said ement itself the defendant has arnest money of Rs.9,05,000/-. t in question stood duly proven -Ali Sher who are the attesting said witnesses had categorically at the defendant entered into laintiff for sale consideration of Rs.9,05,000/- as earnest money. ses that the date for execution of nd the defendant signed the nd accepting the contents to be s scribe of the Agreement to Sell he instructions of the parties. As as admitted the receipt of the about the receipt of the same in tures on the agreement to sell lso proved. In para No. 14 of the corded that the defendant has ent to sell which proves that the The ld. First Appellate court has t also does not hold any ground t has himself written about the 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document receipt of the the Agreemen plaintiff to per 20. notice of moti 21. largely due to behalf of lear 19.12.2023, 14 22. dismissed. 23. 07.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo the earnest money of Rs.9,05,000/ ment to Sell (Ex.P1), and the read perform the said Agreement, is we Before parting it may be p otion on 09.05.2019 following orde “Learned counsel for the appella submits that the appellant is rea paying the earnest money along settled as the suit land is the on appellant. Notice of motion to this extent on Till the next date of hearing, part status quo regarding possession shall not be deemed as extende hearing.” Thereafter, till date the m e to non-appearance of the appell learned counsel for the appellant , 14.05.2024 and 21.10.2024. In view of the above discu Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No 000/." As such the execution of readiness and willingness of the well-established. e pointed out that while issuing order was passed:- pellant, after arguing at length, is ready to settle the dispute by along with interest/damages as e only source of income of the t only for 21.08.2019. parties are directed to maintain ssion over the suit land, which ended beyond the next date of he matter has been adjourned pellant, or on request made on lant on 17.02.2023, 07.10.2023, iscussion, the present appeal is if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 10 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document