Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Appellant -defendants are in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.8.2001 in respect of land measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas entered into between the parties for a total sale consideration of Rs. 40.00 lacs against the payment of Rs. 6.00 lacs as earnest money, has been decreed.
(2.) Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of appellant No. 1 has raised manifold submissions, which are summarised herein below: - - "a) The respondent -plaintiffs had not been ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, in essence the suit was filed on 24.5.2005, whereas the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 10.6.2002. Prior to the aforementioned date, a notice dated 6.6.2002 (Ex. P5) was served upon the respondent -plaintiffs, whereby they were called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs. 34.00 lacs, failing which, the earnest money of Rs. 6.00 lacs shall be deemed to have been forfeited and the agreement to sell cancelled; b) The area, sought to be purchased, was declared as controlled one vide notification dated 5.1.2002. Though the said notification was rescinded on 27.5.2003, no explanation has come forth for a period of two years in filing the suit thereafter; c) After the expiry of target date on 10.6.2002, the respondent -plaintiffs sent a reply to the legal notice dated 6.6.2002 (Ex. P5) vide Ex. P6 dated 11.6.2002 and had raised the objection that the sale deed could not be executed unless and until the appellant -defendants obtained 'No Objection Certificate' (for short "NOC") from the department of Town and Country Planning; d) The respondent -plaintiffs showed their intention, after 27.5.2003 for the first time on 7.6.2004 vide Ex. P10 calling upon the appellant -defendants to execute and register the sale deed by appearing before the Sub Registrar on 6.7.2004. The aforementioned notice was replied vide reply dated 25.6.2004, where it was mentioned that the appellant -defendants had already forfeited the earnest money and the agreement to sell had already been cancelled vide notice dated 6.6.2002 (Ex. P5) and the suit has been filed one year thereafter, i.e., on 24.5.2004, thus, the readiness and willingness is conspicuously absent; e) All the plaintiffs have not stepped into the witness box, except for one plaintiff, namely, Randhir Singh, who, in cross -examination spilled the beans as he was only equipped with Rs. 12.00 lacs and not the entire balance sale consideration of Rs. 34.00 lacs, whereas the other two plaintiffs, namely, Manjeet Singh and Ram Partap did not step into the witness box. Even the readiness and willingness has not been proved at all; f) The agreement to sell did not envisage the condition of obtaining NOC at the instance of the appellant -defendants. The suit, ex -facie, was not maintainable as vide notice dated 6.6.2002, the agreement to sell was cancelled and there is no challenge to the same."
(3.) In support of his aforementioned submissions, relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.S. Sikander (D) by L.Rs Versus K. Subramani & others, : 2014(1) RCR (Civil) 236 and, thus, urges this Court to formulate the following substantial questions of law for determination by this Court: - - "i) Whether the respondent -plaintiffs had been ready and willing in performing their part of the agreement to sell dated 20.8.2001? ii) Whether there was a continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the respondent -plaintiffs as the suit was filed on 24.5.2005, whereas the ban on the controlled area was rescinded on 27.5.2003.";