RSA No.2034 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2034 of 2007 Date of decision: 02.02.2011 Dilbag Rai .....Appellant Versus Surender Kumar Singla and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 5 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit challenging validity of sale deeds dated 24.11.1999 and 26.11.1999 which had been executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 5. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant No.1 was the owner of the property in dispute. Defendant No. 2 acting as a special attorney of defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement to sell dated 8.10.1993 with the plaintiff for a consideration of ` 4,70,000/-. ` 50,000/- were paid by the plaintiff towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.12.1993. Thereafter, orally the date for execution of the sale deed was extended from time to time. Plaintiff served a legal notice to defendants No. 1 and 2 through his counsel dated 24.8.1996 qua execution of the sale deed. However, the reply submitted by RSA No.2034 of 2007 2 defendant No. 2 was evasive. In December, 1999, plaintiff again approached the defendants for execution of the sale deed in his favour but he came to know that the impugned sale deeds had been executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 5. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 in his written statement averred that the suit was not maintainable in view of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The date for execution of the sale deed, as per the alleged agreement to sell, i.e. 8.10.1993, had expired. Defendants No. 3 to 5 moved an application that the plaintiff had no right to challenge the sale deeds executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in their favour. Plaintiff could not get agreement dated 8.10.1993 executed by way of the present suit. Proper Court fee had not been affixed by the plaintiff. Vide judgment and decree dated 15.3.2004, plaint filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in case there was any deficiency in Court fee, plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to make the deficiency in the Court fee. The suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff had challenged the sale deeds executed in the year 1999 by filing the suit in the year 2000. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, RSA No.2034 of 2007 3 has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as by way of the present suit, plaintiff was virtually seeking enforcement of an agreement to sell dated 8.10.1993. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case although plaintiff had challenged the sale deeds dated 24.11.1999 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 to 5 but the plaintiff had based his claim on agreement to sell dated 8.10.1993. As per the said agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.12.1993. The case of the plaintiff is that the date for execution of the sale deed was extended from time to time orally. However, the date for execution of the sale deed could not have been extended orally. Plaintiff could have filed a suit for specific performance within the period of limitation basing claim on the agreement to sell dated 8.10.1993. Plaintiff, however, failed to do that. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff is virtually seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.10.1993 In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable. The plaintiff could not be granted any relief in the suit filed by him. In these circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 02, 2011 arya