C.R.No.1411 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1411 of 2009 Date of Decision:11.05.2009. Nachhattar Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Malkiat Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand. Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.Anand, J. (ORAL) It was a pure and simple suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff – respondent against the defendants – petitioners, who had agreed to sell the land in dispute, vide agreement to sell dated 29.08.2008, to the plaintiff – respondent for a total sale consideration of Rs.33,40,313/-. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by or on 24.11.2008. A sum of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid as earnest amount. As the plaintiff – respondent could not arrange adequate funds, he did not appear before the Sub Registrar; whereas the defendants – petitioners were very much present on that date. 24.11.2008 happened to be a holiday. On that account, the defendants – petitioners appeared before the Sub Registrar on 25.11.2008 and got their presence noticed, in the form of an affidavit. The plaintiff – respondent filed a suit for specific performance on 13.12.2008. The defendants – petitioners entered appearance before that Court on 15.12.2008 and moved two applications before that Court vide which they indicated their readiness and willingness to execute the sale deed and they also applied for a direction to the plaintiff – respondent to pay the balance amount of sale consideration. The defendants – C.R.No.1411 of 2009 2 petitioners applied for the decretal of that suit in favour of the plaintiff – respondent. The learned Trial Court declined the plea by observing that the defendants – petitioners cannot ask for the relief applied for because the revenue record indicates that the land agreed to be sold is under mortgage/attachment with the PADB and ICICI Bank. The learned counsel for the defendants – petitioners states that the learned Trial Court did not, at all, take cognizance of the fact that the defendants – petitioners had produced before it the relevant certification (Annexures P-4 and P-5) to the effect that the land was free from encumbrance. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter afresh after noticing the documentation produced by the defendants – petitioners to prove that the land under reference is free from encumbrance. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 16.05.2009. Copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary. May 11, 2009. (S.D.Anand) vinod Judge