- (1.) There is delay of 53 days in filing and 71 days in refiling the appeal. The same stands condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application. C.Ms. stand disposed of. MAIN CASE Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2010 passed by Shri Subhas Mehla, Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide which appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2007 passed by Shri R.P. Goyal, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, was dismissed. Briefly stated, Suresh Singla filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of land measuring 15 kanals 5 marlas detail of which is given in the plaint. It is pleaded that defendant entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 30.03.2001 for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell dated 30.03.2001. The time for execution of sale deed was fixed as 21.09.2001. The plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar on that date and sworn affidavit before the Executive Magistrate. The defendant did not turn up. It is pleaded that plaintiff has been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
(2.) On put to notice, defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; concealment of material facts and estoppel. On merits, defendant emphatically denied the execution of agreement to sell. It is pleaded that defendant is simpleton and illiterate lady and does not know the implication of law. She never gave her consent for entering into the agreement, nor she has received any consideration. The alleged Agreement dated 30.03.2001 along with other documents are false and is liable to be set aside. In fact no Agreement was executed. The plaintiff in collusion with one Satbir son of Tek Chand resident of Village Chitana, with whom family members of the defendant are having several disputes, have prepared the false documents. She emphatically denied that any Agreement was executed.
(3.) Plaintiff filed replication reiterating the stand taken by him in the suit and converting the averments made in the written statement.;