SONIA GARG Vs. SARITA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

(2.) Through this revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (the defendants in the trial court) pray for setting aside the order dtd. 26/3/2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karnal, while dismissing an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte proceedings ordered on 23/10/2017.

(3.) Some facts are required to be noticed. The plaintiffs- respondents filed a suit for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 14/10/2014 with respect to House no. 633, Sector 8, Urban Estate, Karnal, against the total sale consideration of Rs.1,31,09,000.00 out of which Rs.62,00,000.00(Rs.1,00,000.00 in cash and Rs.61,00,000.00 through cheque which was later on paid by RTGS). As per the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on 20/2/2015. The plaintiffs have also asserted that further an amount of Rs.38,00,000.00 was transferred through RTGS ie. Bank to Bank transaction. The plaintiffs have also asserted that on the request of the defendants, the remaining amount of Rs.31,09,000.00 was paid in cash on 12/2/2015 on the execution of a written endorsement. It is further pleaded that the defendants handed over the chain of original documents of the property in question to the plaintiffs including the original allotment letter, occupation certificate, conveyance deed in the name of the first allottee, further allotment in favour of Subhash Chander, original sale deed 23/3/2007 in favour of Subhash Chander, re- allotment letter in the name of Subhash Chander, original agreement to sell dtd. 16/10/2010 executed by the General Power of Attorney holder Shweta Aggarwal in favour of the defendants, original sale deed dtd. 27/10/2010 and original re-allotment letter dtd. 6/10/2010 in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs further asserted that on 20/2/2015, the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed, the plaintiffs got the sale deeds scribed but the defendants inspite of assuring them on phone call, did not come forward. The plaintiff no.1 got his presence marked before the Sub Registrar.