H.S.BHALLA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by filing the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by virtue of which he has challenged the order dated 13.6.2006 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur by virtue of which the order of the lower Court dated 16.11.2005 was held to be illegal and appeal of the respondents was accepted and the order of the lower court was set aside.
(2.) THE other facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the present plaintiff petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents pleading therein that Kuldip Singh and Gurjinder Singh, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had executed an agreement to sell dated 3.4.2003 to alienate land measuring 17 Kanals 06 Marlas. As sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lac) was paid as earnest money to the petitioner at the time of agreement. Again a sum of Rs. 5 lac was paid to the petitioner on 1.5.2003. Remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed and registered on 30.9.2004. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had executed five sale deeds qua land measuring 3 kanals 3 marlas and received Rs. 27,44,500/- out of the sale consideration, i.e. Rs. 10 lac as earnest money and Rs. 17,44,500/- towards part payment and sale consideration, that total consideration to purchase land measuring 16 Kanals 3 Marlas was Rs. 75,70,312.50; that Rs. 48,25,812.50 remained to be paid as balance sale consideration, that before the agreement dated 3.4.2003 respondents had already executed sale deed qua land measuring 1 Kanal 03 Marlas out of the land going to be sold to the applicant but this fact was not disclosed to the applicant by respondent Nos. 2 and 3; that title of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not valid and legal qua land measuring 1 Kanal 3 Marlas mentioned in the agreement of sale, that the respondents committed breach of agreement of sale deed dated 3.4.2003 and did not executed sale deed in favour of the applicant; that at the time of agreement dated 3.4.2003 actual possession of the land going to be sold was delivered to the applicant. Boundary wall was constructed. The applicant filed a suit for specific performance on 11.11.2004 and the suit was decreed as per statements of the parties. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 13.10.2005. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not execute the sale deed as per judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005. The execution application was filed as per judgment and decree. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have executed sale deeds on 19.10.2005 in favour of his family members of valuable land. Boundary wall was also demolished. The respondents threatened to interfere and take forcible possession of the property after demolishing the boundary wall and road etc. The suit was contested by the respondents and through written statement, they denied most of the assertions raised by the present petitioner and prayed that the suit be dismissed. However, they have categorically pleaded that after judgment and decree dated 12.9.2005, they issued notice to the present petitioner with a request to get the sale deed executed as per judgment and decree after obtaining sale consideration and they remained present before the office of the Sub Registrar to execute the sale deed, but the petitioner failed to turn up.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.;