Disposed¶21

Suraj v. Rekha Malik and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2025CR/5423/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, CR-5423-2025, Amarinder Singh Grewal J., 13.08.2025: Article 227 revision by defendant No.3 (Suraj) seeking directions to Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar to pronounce judgment and decree in specific-performance suit (Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024, Rekha v. Ram Kishan and others; agreement to sell dated 12.02.2024) under Order XII Rule 6 CPC within time-bound frame, citing plaintiff's delay despite defendant's readiness and willingness; petition disposed of with direction to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, no notice issued to plaintiffs.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar to decide Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible; petition disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents-plaintiffs. ¶21

Suraj Vs Rekha Malik and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar to decide Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible; petition disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents-plaintiffs.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court should be directed to pronounce judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024 in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC within a time-bound frame, given the petitioner/defendant No.3's asserted readiness and willingness and the alleged deliberate delay by the respondents-plaintiffs.

¶13

Court's answer

Considering the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jhajjar is directed to decide the suit (Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024) as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Key takeaways

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondents/plaintiffs, as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to them.obiter¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition (CR-5423-2025) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Suraj, defendant No.3 in Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024 ('Rekha v. Ram Kishan and others'), a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.02.2024 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar. The petitioner sought directions to the trial Court to pronounce judgment and decree in terms of Order XII Rule 6 CPC within a time-bound frame, alleging that the respondents-plaintiffs were deliberately delaying execution of the sale deed despite the defendants' readiness and willingness; his application for early hearing had been dismissed, and his statement of 17.07.2025 (in compliance with the order dated 11.12.2024) praying for judgment and decree went unconsidered, the matter continuing to be adjourned. Disposing of the petition without issuing notice to the respondents-plaintiffs (as notice would delay proceedings and entail additional expenses), the High Court (Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.) directed the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jhajjar to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. Decision date: 13.08.2025.

¶1

CR-5423-2025 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

118 CR-5423-2025 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

Suraj

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Rekha Malik and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ravi Kumar Girdhwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of directions to the learned trial Court to pronounce judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024, titled as “Rekha v. Ram Kishan and others” (Annexure P-1), pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar, in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, within a time-bound frame.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract with consequential relief of permanent injunction on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 12.02.2024. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner/defendant No.3 moved an application for early hearing stating that they were ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, whereas the plaintiff was deliberately delaying the execution on the pretext of not having sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration.

¶15

CR-5423-2025 2

¶16

The said application, however, was dismissed with the observation that the defendants could make their submissions regarding readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed and the plaintiff could be directed to get the same executed in her favour on the next date of hearing after making payment of the balance sale consideration. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-4), petitioner/defendant No.3 made a statement in compliance with the order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-3), specifically praying for passing of judgment and decree or, in the alternative, for issuing directions to the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed after paying the balance sale consideration. However, without considering the request made by the defendant/petitioner, the learned trial Court adjourned the matter for filing of the plaintiff’s written statement and reply in the stay application. Despite the aforesaid statement of petitioner/defendant No.3 recorded on 17.07.2025 (Annexure P-4), the matter has continued to be adjourned from time to time on one pretext or the other, and is still pending adjudication.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all sincere and genuine efforts of reconciliation between the parties have failed. He further contends that the deliberate delay on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs is causing constant emotional disturbance and relentless anxiety to the petitioner, apart from paving the way for multiplicity of proceedings in the interregnum. In these circumstances, learned counsel prays for issuance of directions to the learned trial Court to decide Civil Suit No. 494 of 2024, which is pending adjudication, within a time-bound frame.

¶18

CR-5423-2025 3

¶19

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to respondents/plaintiffs as it would delay the proceedings besides entailing additional expenses to the respondents-plaintiffs.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jhajjar is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL ) 13.08.2025 JUDGE

¶23

anil

¶24

Whether speaking/ reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

Suraj v. Rekha Malik and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj v. Rekha Malik and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundan Singh and Anr. Vs Joginder Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Kundan Singh and Others Vs Joginder Singh and Others

(O&M)Jai Ram Vs Inder Singh and Ors.

Sadhu Ram & Others Vs Baru & Others

Harnek Singh and Another Vs Davinder Kaur and Others

Vivek Yadav and Another Vs Saurav Bhadana