ANJU DEVI Vs. TRILOCHAN PRASAD BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter today comes up for orders on an application filed by Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiffs to vacate the ad interim stay order dated 27.08.2019 and so also for orders on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1333 days occasioned in filing the Civil Leave to Appeal filed by Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel representing the appellant.

(2.) Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the applications are being noted hereinbelow. The respondent plaintiffs Mr. Trilochan Prasad and Mr. Shishanpal filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant Mr. Girish Kumar. The suit was filed for enforcing an agreement to sale executed by Girish Kumar for the shop No. 62/B, which was owned by Onkarmal, who had executed a will thereof in favour of Girish Kumar. The agreement was entered into for a consideration of Rs. 22 lacs, of which a sum of Rs. 1 lac was paid in advance. When the seller was not agreeable to execute the registered sale deed, the purchaser, i.e. the plaintiff Trilochan Prasad, filed the suit for specific performance of contract expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount of sale consideration and praying that the agreement be registered. During the pendency of the suit, the parties, i.e. the plaintiff Trilochan Prasad and the defendant-seller arrived at a compromise. A compromise application was moved, which was accepted and the suit was decided in favour of Trilochan Prasad vide judgment dated 15.04.2015 and a decree was issued in his favour. The appellant herein claims that the original owner of the shop, namely, Onkarmal, executed a subsequent will in favour of one Purushottam Lal, who in turn, executed an agreement dated 04.05.2015 in favour of one Surendra Kumar for a consideration of Rs. 15 lacs. Surendra Kumar in turn executed an agreement to sale in favour of Anju Devi, the applicant herein, for a consideration of Rs. 13,15,000/-. Thus, Anju Devi claims to be having a right in the suit property through this agreement to sale.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that in the intervening period, Purushottam Lal filed an application for probate before the competent court, but later on, he withdrew the same. Purushottam Lal also filed an objection in the execution proceedings initiated by the plaintiff, but then withdrew the same. It is noteworthy that the sale deed has already been executed in favour of the plaintiff Trilochan Prasad in execution of the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2015.