SANYA ENTERPRISES Vs. RANGI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An agreement to sell was executed interse one Rangi Ram with M/s Sanya Enterprises. The aforesaid agreement to sell interse the aforesaid was executed, on 7.1.2006. The vendee therein did not, uptill 18.6.2014, institute any Civil Suit, for, rendition of a decree of specific performance qua the aforesaid alleged agreement to sell, rather only on 18.6.2014, it, issued a notice upon the respondent herein, whereunder, the respondent herein, was, requested, to, execute a registered deed of conveyance visavis the contentious suit property, in respect whereof, in the year 2006, an agreement to sell was executed interse the petitioner, and, the respondent herein. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner instituted, hence, a Civil Suit No. 54 of 2014 , seeking therein rendition of a decree of specific performance qua the aforereferred agreement to sell. The aforesaid suit is pending adjudication before this Court.

(2.) Nowat the contentious mutation of exchange was attested in the year 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mutation of exchange, appertains to the property, in respect whereof, the aforereferred agreement to sell was executed, and, in its execution, the, corpus of the contentious suit property, has been destroyed, and, thereupon he contends that the respondent herein has committed a serious penal misdemeanor.

(3.) Even though this Court finds immense force, in, the contention reared before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that, even when a civil litigation, is, pending interse the petitioner, and, the respondent herein, yet its mere pendency, not, barring the aggrieved petitioner herein, to, visavis analogous or similar causes' of action embodied in both, rather canvass appropriate remedies, as, contemplated in the relevant penal statutes. However, the aforesaid submission is not amenable for acceptance by this Court, (a) given the petitioner herein, despite his awareness, visavis , the period of limitation, prescribed in the Limitation Act, for, his in compliance therewith, hence, instituting, within three months, since the execution of an agreement to sell, an apt suit seeking rendition of a decree, for specific performance of agreement to sell, (b) his not instituting an apt suit within the aforereferred period, (c) rather his instituting the apt suit, only, in the year 2014, (d) whereupon it appears qua hence the respondent herein, perceiving qua the petitioner herein, primafacie waiving and abandoning his right under the agreement to sell executed interse the petitioner, and, respondent herein, hence, his proceeding to much subsequent, to the year 2006, and, beyond the apt prescribed period of limitation for instituting a Civil Suit, for, rendition of a decree of specific performance of apt agreement, rather bonafidely proceeding to make a contentious exchange, with respect, to, the contentious suit property, in respect whereof, an agreement to sell was also executed. Consequently, the aforesaid act is neither ingrained with any vice, of, any malafides nor any criminal liability is attracted, upon, the respondent herein, rather it is befitting for the petitioner, to, in, the, Civil Suit concerned, array the exchangees, under, the contentious mutation of exchange, as party(s) to the lis, and, to also rear a challenge therein, thereto.