Amardeep Singh Son Of Shri Jai vs Karam Singh Son Of Shri Near Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3916 HP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                ON THE 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021




                                                     .

                           BEFORE

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL





          REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2018

    Between:-





    1. AMARDEEP SINGH SON OF SHRI JAI
    SINGH,
    2. SURESH SON OF LATE SHRI KULDEEP
    SINGH;

    2(A). SMT. SAVITRI DEVI WIDOW OF SHRI

    SURESH
    2(B). SHRI MUNISH SEN SON OF SHRI
    SURESH,
    2(C). SHRI CHIRAG SEN SON OF SHRI


    SURESY; AND
    ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SALAH, PO
    AND TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.




    3. KAMAL KISHORE SON OF LATE SHRI
    KULDEEP SINGH;





    4.LALIT SON OF LATE SHRI KULDEEP
    SINGH; AND
    5. CHAMPA DEVI WIDOW OF SHRI





    KULDEEP SINGH
    ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SALAH, PO
    AND TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.


                              ....APPELLANTS-DEFENDANTS
    (BY SH. K.D. SOOD, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. HET




                                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:52:58 :::CIS
                                   2



    RAM THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
    AND




                                                              .
    1. KARAM SINGH SON OF SHRI NEAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF





    VPO MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.





                                          ...RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF

    2. AMITA DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI KULDEEP SINGH,
    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALAH, PO SUNDERNAGAR-1,
    TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.





                            DEFENDANT-PROFORMA RESPONDENT
    (MR. AMAN SOOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1;
    NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2)

    Whether approved for reporting?No

                 This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court

    passed the following:



                              JUDGEMENT

RSA No. 317 of 2018 & CMP No. 9614 of 2021

It is heartening to note that mediation proceedings have

been successful and the matter stands compromised between the

parties in terms as are spelled in the application filed under Order 23,

Rule 3, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure jointly

by the parties. Registry is directed to register the same. It shall

thereafter form part of the record. It shall form part of record as Ex.

PX.

2. Appellant No. 1 Sh. Amardeep Singh, who also happens

to be the power of attorney of other appellants as well as proforma

.

respondent No. 2, is present in person in the Court. Photocopy of the

power of attorney, which has been given by the remaining appellants

as well as proforma respondent No. 2, is also ordered to be taken on

record. Respondent No. 1 is also present in person. Parties state at the

bar that a compromise has been entered into between them out of their

own free will and volition. They have signed the same fully

understanding the contents thereof as well as the consequences of not

complying with the said compromise. Accordingly, as prayed, this

appeal is disposed of in the following terms:-

The appellants and proforma respondent No. 2 shall

execute a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1 for a total

sale consideration of `15.00 lac qua the suit land. Out of total sale

consideration, `5.00 lac is admitted to have been received by the

appellants and proforma respondent No. 2. The balance amount of

`10.00 lac will be deposited by respondent No. 1 with the Registry of

this Court on or before 30th of October, 2021. In the event of non-

deposition of the amount, the suit filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff

shall automatically be dismissed and he shall not be entitled for the

decree of specific performance of the agreement of sale. In the event

of the balance amount being deposited within the time granted, sale

.

deed shall be executed and registered by the parties, i.e. by the

appellants and proforma respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No.

1 within one month as from the date of deposition of the balance

amount. After the execution of the sale deed, the amount deposited by

respondent No. 1 with the Registry of this Court shall be released in

favour of the appellants and proforma respondent No. 2. In the event

of respondent No. 1 seeking extension of time for execution of the

sale deed after deposition of the balance amount, then also, the

amount so deposited shall be released in favour of the appellants and

proforma respondent No. 2 after 30.11.2021, on an application, which

the appellants and proforma respondent No. 2, shall be entitled to file

before this Court. In the event of the sale deed not being executed by

the appellants and proforma respondent No. 2 even after the

deposition of the amount, then, as from one month, post deposition of

the said amount or mutually extended time, respondent No. 1 shall be

entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered from the officer

appointed by the Court at the expenses of the appellants and proforma

respondent No. 2, subject to the payment of costs/compensation to the

tune of `50,000/- to respondent No. 1. In addition, the contents of

paras-5 and 6 of the application Ex. PX shall also form part and parcel

.

of this judgment. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet

accordingly. The judgment and decrees passed by learned Courts

below stand modified to this effect. Court fee, as prayed for by

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, be refunded to

the appellants by the Registry, in accordance with the Rules.

The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

                                            (Ajay Mohan Goel)
    August 13, 2021                              Judge
       (narender)