Garg Gurwinder Singh RSA1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Gurinder Singh & others ...Appellants
Versus
Ranjit Kaur & others .Respondents

Court Fees
Chandigarh (Karan Garg) (Teevar Sharma )

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010
Dated: 20.06.2017 (Abhishek Vig)

P-951/2008
Advocates
Counsel for the Appellants
AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus

INDEX
S.No Particulars Dated Pages Court

fee
A. Urgent form 20.06.2017 00
B. Court fee 20.06.2017 00
01. Application for condonation of delay 20.06.2017 1-2
02. Affidavit in support 20.06.2017 3-4
03. Application for exemption and 20.06.2017 5-6
placing on record
05. Application for staying the operation 20.06.2017 9-10
of impugned Judgment.
07. Ground of appeal 20.06.2017 13-24
09. Memo of parties 20.06.2017 27
10. Copy of Judgment & Decree of Civil 15.12.2014 28-39
Judge (Jr. Divn.) Patiala.
11. Ground of appeal 02.02.2015 40-46
12. Copy of Judgment & Decree of 27.01.2017 47-65
Additional District Judge, Patiala.
13. Annexure A-1 (Copy of Affidavit and 09.01.2014
statement of PW-1 Nirmal Singh)
14. Annexure A-2 (copies of the bank 10.09.2014
account statement)
15. Annexure A-3 (application) 30.10.2006
16. Annexure A-4 (affidavit) 30.10.2006
17. Annexure A-5 (Statement of PW-3) 19.11.2014
18. Annexure A-6 (Statement of DW-1) 05.12.2014
19. Power of attorney 20.06.2017
20. Certified copy of Judgment & Decree 15.12.2014
of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Karnal.
21. Certified copy of Ground of appeal 02.02.2015
22 Certified copy of Judgment & Decree 27.01.2017
of Additional District Judge, Karnal.
23 Vernacular of Annexure A-1 09.01.2014
Note : No caveat has been received by the appellants.

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010

P-951/2008
Advocates
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to condone the delay of
.days in filing this regular Second
Appeal, in the interest of justice.
Respectfully Showeth :-
1. That the applicants/appellants are filing the Second Appeal in this
Honble court, which is likely to succeed on merits on the basis of
grounds taken in the Second Appeal.
2. That the applicants/appellants are illiterate persons and was not
having any knowledge regarding challenging the judgment & decree
dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Additional District judge, Patiala by
filing an appeal before this Honble court. On 05.06.2017 the
applicants/appellants with their relatives approached the counsel
undersigned for seeking consultation in some other matter, however
they also discussed regarding the judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed
by the District judge Patiala, upon which the counsel undersigned told
them that they can challenge the above Judgment/decree by filing an
appeal before Honble High court. Thereafter the applicants/appellants
approached undersigned counsel on 08.06.17 with the documents for
filing the present appeal. Thereafter the present regular Second appeal
was drafted and is being filed without any further delay. However, due
to the circumstances/reasons mentioned above delay of . days
has occurred in filing the appeal, which is neither intentional nor
deliberate but due to the circumstances mentioned above.
3. That the appellants/applicants have very good case on merits and
balance of convenience also lies in favour of applicants/appellants.
4. That in case the delay of days in filing the present appeal is
not condoned the applicants/appellants will suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in any manner.
Prayer :-
It is therefore respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be
allowed and the delay of days in filing the present Regular Second
appeal, may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.
Note: Affidavit in support is attached.

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010

P-951/2008
Advocates
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Affidavit of Gurinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh
age..Resident of Village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil &
district Patiala.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

under :-
1. That the applicants/appellants are filing the Second Appeal in this
Honble court, which is likely to succeed on merits on the basis of
grounds taken in the Second Appeal.
2. That the applicants/appellants are illiterate persons and was not
having any knowledge regarding challenging the judgment & decree
dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Additional District judge, Patiala by
filing an appeal before this Honble court. On 05.06.2017 the
applicants/appellants with their relatives approached the counsel
undersigned for seeking consultation in some other matter, however
they also discussed regarding the judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed
by the District judge Patiala, upon which the counsel undersigned told
them that they can challenge the above Judgment/decree by filing an

appeal before Honble High court. Thereafter the applicants/appellants
approached undersigned counsel on 08.06.17 with the documents for
filing the present appeal. Thereafter the present regular Second appeal
was drafted and is being filed without any further delay. However, due
to the circumstances/reasons mentioned above delay of . days
has occurred in filing the appeal, which is neither intentional nor
deliberate but due to the circumstances mentioned above.
3. That the appellants/applicants have very good case on merits and
balance of convenience also lies in favour of applicants/appellants.
4. That in case the delay of days in filing the present appeal is
not condoned the applicants/appellants will suffer irreparable loss and
injury which cannot be compensated in any manner
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 20.06.2017 Deponent
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit in Para no. 1 to 4
are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 20.06.2017 Dep

AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Application under section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for exemption from filing the certified
copies Annexure A-1 to A-6 and for placing on
record the same, in the interest of justice.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the appellants/applicants is filing the accompanying Judgment
and Decree dated 27.01.2017 passed by Additional District Judge,
Patiala and on the strength of the grounds taken therein, the
appellant/applicant is sanguine about its acceptance.
2. That the appellants/applicants has filed true typed copy of Annexure
A-1 to A-6, as the certified copies thereof are not readily available
and any initiative to procure the same at this stage, would
unnecessarily delay the filing of the appeal in this Honble Court.

3. That the Annexure A-1 to A-6, are very necessary to be placed on
record to resolve the controversy involved in the present case.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may kindly
be allowed and this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to dispense with
the requirement of filing certified copies of Annexure A-1 to A-6 and the
same be allowed to be placed on record, in the interest of justice.
Note: Affidavit is attached

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010

P-951/2008
Advocates
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Affidavit of Gurinder Singh son of Ranjit
Singh age..Resident of Village Ucha Gaon,
Tehsil & district Patiala.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under :-
2. That the appellants/applicants has filed true typed copy of Annexure
A-1 to A-6, as the certified copies thereof are not readily available
and any initiative to procure the same at this stage, would
unnecessarily delay the filing of the appeal in this Honble Court.

3. That the Annexure A-1 to A-6, are very necessary to be placed on
record to resolve the controversy involved in the present case.
Place: Chandigarh
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit in para no. 1 to 3
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No part of it is false and
nothing material has been concealed there from.
Place: Chandigarh

AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with
section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for
staying the operation of Judgment and Decree
dated 27.01.2017 passed by Additional District
Judge, Patiala, during the pendency of the
regular second appeal, in the interest of justice.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
appellants/applicants is sanguine about its acceptance.
2. That the grounds of appeal may be read as part of this application
for stay.
3. That the appellants/applicants have a prima facie good case and
balance of convenience is also in his favour.

4. That in case the operations of Judgment and Decree dated
27.01.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, are not
stayed, the appellants/applicants would suffer an irreparable loss
and substantial injury.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may kindly
be allowed and operations of impugned Judgment and Decree dated
24.01.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, may kindly be
stayed, during the pendency of the appeal, in the interest of justice,
equity and fair play.
Note: Affidavit is attached in support.
Chandigarh (Karan Garg) (Teevar Sharma)

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010

P-951/2008
Advocates
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Affidavit of Gurinder Singh son of Ranjit
Singh age..Resident of Village Ucha Gaon,
Tehsil & district Patiala.
.
as under :-
appellants/applicants is sanguine about its acceptance.
2. That the grounds of appeal may be read as part of this application
for stay.
3. That the appellants/applicants have a prima facie good case and
balance of convenience is also in his favour.
That in case the operations of Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2017
passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, are not stayed, the

appellants/applicants would suffer an irreparable loss and substantial
injury.
Place: Chandigarh
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit from Para No.1 to 4
nothing material has been concealed there from.
Place: Chandigarh

GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. That the Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2017 passed by
Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the well reasoned
judgment and decree dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Civil
Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala, has been reversed, is wrong, illegal and
is not sustainable in the eyes of Law. The copies of the Judgment
Patiala and Judgment and decree dated 15.12.2014 passed by the
Ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Patiala and grounds of appeal filed
before the Ld. Lower Appellate Court dated 02.02.2015, are
attached herewith.
2. That the judgment and decree passed by Ld. Lower Appellate court,
whereby the suit for specific performance of the agreement and
permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent has been
partly decreed is wrong, illegal and based upon mis-reading and non
appreciation of evidence led by the parties besides being perverse.
In fact, the suit for suit for specific performance of the agreement
and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent ought to
have been dismissed.
3. The brief facts as per the case of the Respondent/plaintiff are that
the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 entered into an agreement
dated 28.2.2006 for the sale of the suit land and they had agreed to
sell the above said land to the Respondent/plaintiff alongwith all
rights of the ownership and the Respondents/plaintiff agreed to
purchase the above noted land. That Rs.5,50,000/- was paid by the
Respondent/plaintiff to the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 as
earnest money at the time of execution of the above said agreement
to sell dated 28.2.2006 in the presence of the marginal witnesses
Nazar Singh, Saudagar Khan and Balkar Singh. That the sale deed
was to be executed on 30.10.2006. It was also agreed between the
parties that if the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 failed to get the
sale deed executed, then the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 will
be bound to return the double the amount of earnest money i.e.
Rs.11,00,000/- and in case the plaintiff/Respondents failed to get
sale deed executed then his earnest money will stand forfeited and
the agreement will be cancelled. That on 30.10.2006 the
Respondent/plaintiff alongwith the balance sale consideration was
present in the office of Sub Registrar and kept on waiting for
appellants/defendants No.1 & 2. The Respondents/plaintiff had
marked his presence before the Sub Registrar and is still ready and
willing to perform his part of the agreement. That thereafter, the
suit land was further sold by appellants/defendants No.1 & 2 to
Performa Respondent/defendant No.3 Kuldev Kaur against terms
and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006. That the
appellants/defendants No.1 & 2 had never come to the office of Sub
Registrar for marking their presence. Hence, the present suit

4. Upon notice, the appellants/defendants appeared and the
appellants/defendants filed the written statement while taking
preliminary objections of maintainability; cause of action;
infructuous; false, frivolous and vexatious; clean hands; hopelessly
time barred; and bad for misjoinder of necessary party. On merits,
the execution of the agreement to sell was admitted by the

appellants/defendants No.1 & 2. But it was averred by the
appellants/defendants that the plaintiff alongwith balance sale
consideration had not come present on 30.10.2006 and kept on
waiting for the appellants/defendants. That the defendants went to
the office of Sub Registrar Patiala on 30.10.2006 and waited for the
Respondents/plaintiff but he did not turn up. Thereafter the
appellants/defendants had marked their presence before the Office
of Sub Registrar, Patiala. It was denied that the Respondent/plaintiff
was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It was
averred that after 30.10.2006, the date fixed for execution of the
sale deed, the appellants/defendants had approached to the plaintiff
to get the sale deed executed in his favour and to pay the balance
sale consideration, but each time the Respondent/plaintiff has
showed his inability and after waiting for one year the
appellants/defendants had alienated the suit land to Kuldev Kaur
vide sale deed dated 25.4.2007 and also handed over the
possession to the Performa Respondent No.3/defendant No.3.
Vehemently denying all other averments made in the plaint, a prayer
for its dismissal is made out. The replication was filed, wherein the
averments of the written statement were denied and that of the
plaint were reiterated.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the
agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006 executed by the
defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff regarding the suit
land as detailed in head-note of plaint? OPP

ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as
prayed for? OPP

iii. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
iv. Whether suit (plaintiff) has no cause of action to file the
present suit? OPD (words 'plaintiff ' be read instead of words
'suit')
v. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?
OPD
vi. Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of necessary
party? OPD
vii.Relief.
2. That to prove his case the plaintiff/Respondent himself stepped in
the witnesses box as PW1 and also examined PW2, the Balkar Singh
marginal witness of the agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006, PW3
Kesar Singh, Clerk of Sub Registrar, Patiala. The plaintiff also relied
upon the agreement to sell dated 28.2.2006 Ex.P1, application and
affidavit for marking presence Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 respectively, photocopy
of entry of register Ex.P4, photo state copy of sale deed dated
27.9.2005 Mark-A. During cross-examination of plaintiff and his
witnesses, the defendant put to him documents that is copy of
agreement to sell dated 27.9.2005 as Ex.D1, copy of statement of
accounts as Ex.D2, photocopy of entry register No.1332 Ex.D3The
defendants examined Gurinder Singh, defendant No.1 as DW1, Jit
Singh Nambdardar as DW2. The defendants also relied upon Ex.D4
being application and Ex.D5 being the affidavit for marking
presence, Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 as Ex.D6, copy of sale
deed dated 5.7.2007 Mark-DX, copy of sale deed dated 23.5.2007
Mark- DZ and copy of sale deed dated 25.4.2007 Mark-DZ.
3. That the Ld. Trial court vide well reasoned judgment and decree
dated 15.12.2014, dismissed the suit filed by the

Respondent/plaintiff, however the Ld. Lower Appellate Court
wrongly and illegally decreed the suit filed by the
Respondent/plaintiff on 27.01.2017. It is pertinent to mention here
that the Ld. Lower Appellate Court, judgment and decree dated
27.01.2017, have decided the appeal against the Judgment &
Decree dated 15.12.2014 which was dismissed by the Ld. Trial
court.
4. That finding recorded by the Ld. Lower Appellate court that the
appellants/defendant nos. 1 & 2 have since executed sale deed in
favour of the Performa Respondent/defendant no. 3 and by
necessary implication, the agreement has become frustrated and
thus voidable at the option of the plaintiff, is wrong, illegal and
perverse, because the Ld. Lower Appellant court failed to consider
the fact that on the day of execution of sale deed, the
respondent/plaintiff was not ready with the balance sale
consideration and the appellants/respondents sold the suit land after
1 year from the date of execution, even then the
Respondent/plaintiff failed to approach the appellant/defendants to
do the registry in favour of Respondent/plaintiff only with the
purpose to take his earnest money back from the appellants.
Therefore, the above finding recorded by the Ld. Lower Appellate
court, is illegal and perverse and liable to set aside.
5. That the Ld. Lower Appellate court while deciding the appeal
ignoring the facts that the Respondents/plaintiff was not ready and
willing to perform the contract on the date of execution of sale
deed. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ld. Lower Appellate

court did not record any finding with regard to the financial
incapability of the Respondent/plaintiff regarding to perform the
contract whereas the Ld. Trial court specifically observed that,
After appraisal of the oral as well as documentary evidence
on record, I am of the considered view that the burden is
upon the plaintiff to prove that on the date of execution of
the sale deed dated 30.10.2006 he was in a capacity to pay
the balance sale consideration of the alleged agreement to
sell but the statement of accounts of the Corporation Bank
Leela Bhawan Branch Ex.D2 clearly shows that in the
account of the plaintiff since 1.2.2006 to 1.8.2007 there was
not sufficient amount through which he can execute the
sale deed in his favour by the defendants. So, I am of the
view that the capacity of the plaintiff to pay the balance
sale consideration of Rs.50 Lakhs also comes under scanner
as the document/ evidence is not endorsing his views.
Furthermore, he deposed that he has taken Rs.30 Lakhs
from his cousin Harbhajan Singh but Harbhajan Singh did
not step into witness box to endorse the version of the
plaintiff that he had taken Rs.30 Lakhs from him for
execution of the sale deed. As the plaintiff himself deposed
that he has income of Rs.2 Lakhs from his land, it is beyond
imagination that how he would have accumulated the
balance sale consideration of Rs.50 Lakhs. So, I do not
concur with the views of the plaintiff's counsel that he was
in a sound financial capacity to get execute the sale deed

from the defendants. Furthermore the Ld. Trial Court also
observed that, So, this version of the plaintiff that he was
ready and willing on the date of registration of the sale
deed, does not find favour and his story seems to be highly
unreliable and untrustworthy as he had not produced on
record any document which could show that he was in a
position to execute the sale deed in his favour. Meaning
thereby that the Ld. Lower Appellate court failed to appreciate the
evidence on record regarding the readiness and willingness to
perform the agreement to sell and the judgment & decree dated
27.01.2017 is liable to be set aside.
6. That it is also relevant to mention here that the Respondent/plaintiff
has not the financial capacity to perform the agreement to sell
because in his cross examination the Respondent/Plaintiff state that,
he has only 5 killa land at longowal and he get Rs. 2/- lac per
annum from the contract of these land and he has no other source
of income. It is also pertinent to mention here that from the date of
agreement to sell till the date of execution of sale deed, there was
no sufficient fund in the bank account of Respondent/plaintiff. It is
also admitted in his cross examination that, it is correct that
from 01.08.2006 to 1.2.2007 the total amount in my
account is Rs. 2795/-. Under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
Act the continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the
plaintiff is a condition precedent for the grant of the relief of specific
performance. The Supreme Court in various judgments has held that
the amount of consideration which has to be paid by the plaintiff to

the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available, right
from the date of the execution till date of the decree and he must
prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his
part of the contract. Meaning thereby that in view of the above
evidence given by PW-1 the above finding of the Ld. Lower
Appellate court, is illegal and perverse. The copies of the
Statement of Respondent/Plaintiff Pw-1 and account
statement are attached herewith as Annexure A-1 and A-2.
7. That It is pertinent to mention here that the factum of readiness and
willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract is to be
adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the
attending circumstances. The Supreme Court in various judgments
has held that the facts of the case demonstrated that the plaintiff
was not ready nor had the capacity to perform his part of the
contract due to his financial incapacity to pay the consideration as
contracted and intended to bide for the time which would disentitle
him to claim the relief. In the present case also the Ld. Lower
Appellate court failed to consider the conduct of the
Respondent/plaintiff because the respondent .plaintiff stated that he
borrowed Rs. 30 lakhs from his cousin Harbhajan Singh for
execution the sale deed but Harbhajan Singh did not step into
witness box to endorse the version of the plaintiff and it is also
admitted by the plaintiff that his income was 2 lakhs annum, then it
is beyond imagination that how he would have accumulated the
balance sale consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs.

8. That it is the settled Law that a person who does not approach the
Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and
he can be non suited summarily at any stage of the case. whereas
the Respondent/Plaintiff claimed in his plaint that it is pertinent to
mention here that it is the specific stand of the Respondent/plaintiff
that Respondent/plaintiff visited the defendants so many times and
also requested the appellants/defendants to get the sale deed
executed and registered in his favour whereas in the cross
examination of plaintiff i.e. PW-1 admitted that neither the
Respondent/Plaintiff met with the appellants/defendants nor he
asked the defendants for registry from the date of execution of sale
deed till date of the filing of present suit. Moreover it is also
admitted by the Respondent/Plaintiff that before filing of the present
suit he came to know that the appellant had sold the suit property
to Respondent no. 3 then even after selling of the land by appellants
to Performa Respondent 3, he had not sent any legal notice to the
appellants. Meaning thereby that the Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit
only to take his earnest money back, the respondent was not willing
and ready to perform the contract.
9. That the Ld. Lower Appellate court while deciding the appeal
ignoring the facts that the Respondents/plaintiff filed a suit for
specific performance after the delay of around 3 years from the date
of accruing of cause of action in his favour. It is settle law that it is
incumbent upon the plaintiff both to aver and prove that he had all
along been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of
contract which were required to be performed by him. In the case,

the plaintiff filed the suit almost after a period of 3 years from the
date of execution of sale deed and the plaintiff did not bring in any
material to show that he had ever asked the owner of the property
to execute sale deed and he filed the suit only after he came to
know that the suit land had already been sold in favour of a third
party. Here also, the plaintiff has not established that he had always
been ready and willing to perform the terms of the contract.
Meaning thereby that the judgment & decree dated 27.01.2017 is
liable to be set aside.
10. That the Ld. Lower Appellate court failed to consider that the
Respondents/Plaintiff was not present before the sub-Registrar
Patiala on the date of execution of sale deed and it is also pertinent
to mention here that there was no date mentioned in the application
& Affidavit i.e. Ex P-2 & Ex P-3 moved by the Respondent/plaintiff
for marked his presence before sub-Registrar, Patiala. It is admitted
by the PW-3 in his cross examination that, it is correct that on
the EX P-3 there is no date mention under number 1321. It is
also correct that no date, month, year has been mentioned under
the signature of attesting authority Executive Magistrate, Patiala.
The copies of the application, affidavit and statement of
PW-3 are attached as Annexure A-3, A-4 & A-5 respectively.
11. That the Ld. Lower Appellate court failed to consider the
evidence on record that, the counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff
crossed examined the appellants/ respondents on material point and
counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff has not been put any
suggestion from the appellant/defendant in cross examination

regarding whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part
of agreement on 30.10.2006 and that he had also capacity to pay
the balance sale consideration of agreement to sell dated
28.02.2006. it is settled that when there is no cross-examination on
some vital points by the opposite party then those facts are deemed
to be admitted by the party. Meaning thereby that the Respondent
admitted that he is not ready with the sale consideration on the date
of execution of sale. A copy of the statement of DW-1 is
attached herewith as Annexure A-6.
12. That the judgments and authorities relied upon by the Ld.
Counsel for the appellants have not been properly appreciated by
the Ld. Lower Appellate court and thus has caused serious prejudice
to the appellant.
13. That following are the substantial question of law which arises
in this Regular Second Appeal for the kind consideration of this
Honble Court.
i) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case,
findings recorded Ld. Lower Appellate court, in decreeing the
suit of the plaintiff, are wrong and illegal beside being
perverse ?
ii) Whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the
judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Lower Appellate court
is the result of misreading and mis-construing the oral and
documentary evidence lead by the parties ?
iii) Whether the plaintiff has willing or ready to perform the
contract?
iv) Whether Ld Lower Appellate court, has drawn the
unwarranted inferences on the facts and law?
v) Whether the grave & manifest injustice has been caused to
the appellants?
14. That no such and similar appeal has earlier been filed by the
appellants against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2017
passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, before this Honble court
or before Honble Apex court.
Prayer:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present Regular
Second Appeal may kindly be allowed and the Judgment and Decree dated
27.01.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, may kindly be set
aside and the suit of the Respondent/plaintiff may please be dismissed
with costs, in the interest of justice.

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010
P-951/2008
Advocates
IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
.
In Regular Second Appeal _______2017
MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Gurinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh age
2. Ravinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh age..both are resident of
Village Ucha Gaon Tehsil & district Patiala.

Defendants/Appellants
Versus
1. Ranjit Kaur
2. Gursharan Kaur
3. Gurpartap Singh all are resident of Village Rajinder Nagar, Tehsil
and district Fatehgarh Sahib.

.Plaintiffs/Respondents
4. Kuldev kaur wife of Kirpal Singh resident of Dhuri, District Sangrur
..Performa Respondent/defendants

P-2568/2010 P-2568/2010

P-951/2008
Advocates
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
..
Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017
IN
RSA No.___________________of 2017
Versus
Affidavit of Gurinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh
age..Resident of Village Ucha Gaon Tehsil &
district Patiala.
as under :-
1. That the appellant/applicant is filing the accompanying Judgment
2. That the grounds of appeal may be read as part of this affidavit and
has not been reproduced for the sake of brevity.

3. That no such or similar appeal has earlier been filed by the appellant
before this Honble court or before the Honble Supreme court of
India.
Place: Chandigarh
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of my above affidavit from Para No.1 to 3
nothing material has been concealed therefore.
Place: Chandigarh

Garg Gurwinder Singh RSA1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garg Gurwinder Singh RSA1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

RSA No.___________________of 2017

Gurinder Singh & others ...Appellants

Ranjit Kaur & others .Respondents

Chandigarh (Karan Garg) (Teevar Sharma )

Dated: 20.06.2017 (Abhishek Vig)

RSA No.___________________of 2017

Gurinder Singh & others ...Appellants

Ranjit Kaur & others .Respondents

S.No Particulars Dated Pages Court

Chandigarh (Karan Garg) (Teevar Sharma )

Dated: 20.06.2017 (Abhishek Vig)

Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017

IN RSA No.___________________of 2017

Gurinder Singh & others ...Appellants

Ranjit Kaur & others .Respondents

Application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act to condone the delay of

.days in filing this regular Second

Appeal, in the interest of justice.

1. That the applicants/appellants are filing the Second Appeal in this

Honble court, which is likely to succeed on merits on the basis of

grounds taken in the Second Appeal.

2. That the applicants/appellants are illiterate persons and was not

having any knowledge regarding challenging the judgment & decree

dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Additional District judge, Patiala by

filing an appeal before this Honble court. On 05.06.2017 the

applicants/appellants with their relatives approached the counsel

undersigned for seeking consultation in some other matter, however

they also discussed regarding the judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed

appeal before Honble High court. Thereafter the applicants/appellants

approached undersigned counsel on 08.06.17 with the documents for

to the circumstances/reasons mentioned above delay of . days

has occurred in filing the appeal, which is neither intentional nor

deliberate but due to the circumstances mentioned above.

3. That the appellants/applicants have very good case on merits and

balance of convenience also lies in favour of applicants/appellants.

4. That in case the delay of days in filing the present appeal is

not condoned the applicants/appellants will suffer irreparable loss and

injury which cannot be compensated in any manner.

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be

appeal, may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

Note: Affidavit in support is attached.

Chandigarh (Karan Garg) (Teevar Sharma )

Dated: 20.06.2017 (Abhishek Vig)

Civil Misc. No._______________of 2017

IN RSA No.___________________of 2017

Gurinder Singh & others ...Appellants

Ranjit Kaur & others .Respondents

Affidavit of Gurinder Singh son of Ranjit Singh

age..Resident of Village Ucha Gaon, Tehsil &

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

Honble court, which is likely to succeed on merits on the basis of

grounds taken in the Second Appeal.

2. That the applicants/appellants are illiterate persons and was not

having any knowledge regarding challenging the judgment & decree

dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Additional District judge, Patiala by

filing an appeal before this Honble court. On 05.06.2017 the

applicants/appellants with their relatives approached the counsel

undersigned for seeking consultation in some other matter, however

they also discussed regarding the judgment dated 27.01.2017 passed

them that they can challenge the above Judgment/decree by filing an

approached undersigned counsel on 08.06.17 with the documents for

to the circumstances/reasons mentioned above delay of . days