Dismissed¶36

Avtar Singh v. Charan Singh Alias Charan Dass

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Nov 2025RSA/966/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-966-2025 (O&M) with CM-3494-C-2025, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 03.11.2025 by Justice Deepak Gupta: condonation of 406-day delay in filing regular second appeal refused despite plea of communication gap with counsel; specific performance decree based on agreement to sell dated 24.06.2015 (₹15 lakh consideration, ₹13 lakh earnest money, sale deed promised on or before 31.05.2016) upheld; concurrent findings affirmed, fraud plea rejected for lack of particulars; appeal dismissed barred by limitation and on merits.

What did the court decide?

Condonation refused: the grounds for condoning a delay of more than one year are absolutely not justifiable; a mere communication gap with the trial-court counsel cannot justify a 406-day delay, and the application is dismissed as devoid of merit. ¶18

Avtar Singh Vs Charan Singh Alias Charan Dass — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 406 days in filing the regular second appeal should be condoned (application under Section 151 CPC). +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

¶18

Ratio / Principle

On merits the appeal has no substance: the agreement to sell and receipt were proved by the plaintiff (PW1 Charan Singh) and two attesting witnesses (PW2 Rachan Singh, PW3 Chanan Singh), no particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation were pleaded or proved, and the contention that the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence has no merit; the Court declines to disturb the concurrent findings that the documents were duly proved and that the defendant-appellant failed to perform his part of the contract.

¶35

Key takeaways

The appeal deserves to be dismissed not only as barred by limitation but also on merits, and is ordered accordingly.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Deepak Gupta, J.) dismisses RSA-966-2025 (O&M) both as barred by limitation and on merits. Condonation of the 406-day delay in filing the appeal is refused: a communication gap between the appellant and his trial-court counsel cannot justify a delay of more than one year, and the application under Section 151 CPC (CM-3494-C-2025) is dismissed as devoid of merit. On merits, the Court declines to disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the agreement to sell dated 24.06.2015 (consideration ₹15 lakh; earnest money ₹13 lakh) and the receipt were duly proved through the plaintiff (PW1) and two attesting witnesses (PW2 Rachan Singh, PW3 Chanan Singh), that no particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation were pleaded or proved, and that it was the defendant-appellant who failed to perform his part of the contract; the decree for specific performance in favour of Charan Singh @ Charan Dass therefore stands upheld.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CM-3494-C-2025 in/and RSA-966-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.11.2025

Avtar Singh

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Charan Singh @ Charan Dass . . . . Respondent

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

****

¶11

Present : - Mr. Vishal Thakur, Advocate, for the Appellant.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CM-3494-C-2025

The appeal is accompanied by the present application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 406 days in filing the present appeal.

¶16

Suit of the plaintiff- respondent herein for specific performance was decreed on 18.05.2022. Appeal filed by the defendant - appellant herein was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 21.10.2023. Present appeal has been filed on 08.01.2025.

¶17

Seeking condonation of delay of 406 days in filing the appeal, it is contended that appellant was having communication gap with his counsel at the trial Court, due of which he was not properly guided by his counsel to file the appeal. It is stated that appellant was not aware about the limitation for filing the appeal before the High Court and it is for this reason that the delay of 406 days occurred in filing this appeal.

¶18

The grounds for condoning the delay of more than one year are absolutely not justifiable. Simply because the appellant was having communication gap with his counsel before the trial Court cannot be a reason to justify the delay of 406 days in filing the appeal. As such, the application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶19

CM stands disposed of.

¶20

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.11.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

RSA-966-2025

¶22

2025:PHHC:151209

¶23

RSA-966-2025 (O&M)

¶24

Though the appeal is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation, as per above order, but even if the same is considered on merits, it is found to contain no substance.

¶25

Plaintiff sought decree of possession of suit property by way of specific performance based upon agreement to sell dated 24.06.2015, whereby defendant i.e. appellant had agreed to sell the suit property for consideration of ₹15 lakh. He had received an amount of ₹13 lakh as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 31.05.2016 on receiving of balance sale consideration. It was contended by the plaintiff that he appeared before the Sub Registrar on 31.05.2016 along with balance sale consideration, but defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff got his affidavit dated 31.05.2016 attested. He also sent a legal notice dated 15.06.2016 (Ex.P4) to the defendant through registered post, but in vain. Plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but defendant avoided to perform his part of contract.

¶26

The stand of defendant was total denial. According to him, he neither agreed to sell his land nor received any earnest money. The agreement to sell and receipt Exs.P1 and P2, as relied upon by the plaintiff, were alleged to be based upon fraud and misrepresentation. Prayer was accordingly made to dismiss the suit.

¶27

After framing of issue and appraising the evidence on record, trial Court decreed the suit, and Appellate Court affirmed the findings, while dismissing the appeal of the defendant.

¶28

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, is found to have no merit.

¶29

As noticed by learned Courts below, the agreement to sell as well as receipt are proved not only by way of testimony of plaintiffCharan Singh, who was examined as PW1, but the same were further

¶30

VIVEK PAHWA 2025.11.04 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

Page 2 of 3

¶32

RSA-966-2025

¶33

2025:PHHC:151209

¶34

proved by the testimony of two of its attesting witnesses namely PW2 Rachan Singh and PW3 Chanan Singh. It is further observed by the Courts below that though defendant contended the agreement to sell to be a result of fraud and misrepresentation, but no particulars of alleged fraud or misrepresentation had been pleaded or proved.

¶35

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby it was held that agreement to sell as well as receipt were duly proved on record and it was defendant-appellant, who failed to perform his part of contract in terms of the agreement executed by him with the plaintiffrespondent.

¶36