RSA-9726-2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 122 RSA-9726-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.09.2025 Gurdeep Singh ...... Appellant versus Sham Lal and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the appellant. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) CM-9898-C-2025 This is an application under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 for restoration of the regular second appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 04.08.2025. For the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number and is taken up on board today itself. RSA-9726-2018 1. Plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit filed seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.02.2006 stands dismissed. 2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking mandate to the defendants to specifically perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 06.02.2006 regarding land measuring 37 Kanal 07 Marlas as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint. Further prayer was for grant of decree of DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.24 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-9726-2018 (O&M) permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit land or part thereof. The alternate prayer made was for recovery of sum of Rs.5,93,500/-, including Rs.2,50,000/- paid as earnest money and Rs.2,50,000/- as damages and Rs.93,500/- spent on stamp papers. 3. Both the Courts below have non-suited the plaintiff on the ground of lack of readiness and willingness. Evidently, as per the record, defendants proved of having remained present on the appointed date before the Sub Registrar, Mahilpur for execution of the sale deed. Their affidavit has come on record as Ex. D1 and the same stands proved. It has also come on record that the defendants issued legal notice on 03.11.2006 to the appellant calling him to come present before the Sub Registrar and to execute the sale deed. It was specifically mentioned that in the event of his failure to do so, the earnest money shall stand forfeited. Receipt of the legal notice stands proved as the appellant replied to the same vide communication dated 14.11.2006. 4. The present suit was instituted only on 31.07.2009. Even in the suit, there is no payer made seeking declaration against the cancellation of the agreement to sell and forfeiture of earnest money. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the findings recorded by both the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff in toto. 6. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) 22.09.2025 JUDGE Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.24 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document