PARAMJIT KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. SHER JUNG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-defendant have assailed the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017 of the Ist Appellate Court, Kurukshetra, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure P-4), dismissing the suit of respondent-plaintiff-Sher Jung Singh, for want of evidence was set aside and the same was ordered to be deemed to have been dismissed in default.

(2.) In nutshell, according to the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.12.2008 with respondent-Sher Jung Singh, for a sale consideration of Rs. 15,15,000/-, qua land measuring 20 kanals 4 marlas, being 3/40 share of total land measuring 269 kanals 0 marlas, situated in village Ram Nagar, Hadbast No. 156, Sub Tehsil Babain, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, according to jamabandi 2006-07. An amount of Rs. 7 lacs, as earnest money was paid in advance by the respondent to the petitioners. Sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 15.06.2009, on payment of balance sale consideration which was extended to 31.12.2009, by mutual consent. On that day, i.e. 31.12.2009, the respondent came to know that there was some stay order of this Court dated 25.02.2008, qua the land in question which the petitioners had not disclosed to him, at the time of entering into the aforesaid agreement to sell, therefore, the date of execution of sale deed was mutually extended, till the expiry of 30 days after vacation of the stay order. This extension of time for execution of sale deed was reduced into writing on the back of the original agreement to sell itself, duly signed by the petitioners. During the pendency of the stay order, the petitioners with their dishonest intention and evil desire tried to alienate the land in question to a third party, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2010, restraining the petitioners-defendant from selling or alienating the suit land to any third party or anyone else except him.

(3.) In the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff, did not lead any evidence, therefore, the trial Court vide judgment and decree Annexure P-4 dismissed his suit for want of evidence.