Rsa No. 771 of 2025 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Present: Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate and Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) At the outset, it is no-ced that though no formal applica-on was moved pursuant to the statement recorded on 30.10.2025 for withdrawal of the appeal qua appellant No.2, learned counsel for the appellants has today made a categorical statement that since the appeal of appellant No.2 had already been accepted by the learned First Appellate Court, appellant No.2 does not wish to pursue the present appeal.

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellants, the present appeal, insofar as it relates to appellant No.2, is disposed of as not pressed. CM-2738-C-2025 :

The appeal is accompanied by an applica-on bearing CM-2738- C-2025 under Sec-on 5 of the Limita-on Act 1963, seeking condona-on of delay of 274 days in filing. The judgment of the trial Court is dated

21.08.2017, whereas the First Appellate Court disposed of the appeal vide judgment dated 07.03.2024.

As per the averments made in the applica-on, it is pleaded that a>er the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the appellant intended to YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:1) file the present appeal within limita-on, but the original paper-book was misplaced by the clerk of the counsel. It is stated that the file could be traced only later from a bunch of admi?ed cases, resul-ng in delay of 274 days. The applica-on is supported by an affidavit of Gian Singh, stated to be the a?orney of appellant No.1.

Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard on the applica-on.

This Court does not find any sufficient or jus-fiable cause so as to condone the inordinate delay of 274 days. The explana-on furnished is vague and wholly unsubstan-ated. Neither the name of the clerk, who allegedly misplaced the file nor the name of the counsel, whose clerk commi?ed such lapse has been disclosed. No affidavit of the concerned clerk has been placed on record. Mere bald asser-ons regarding misplacement of the file, without par-culars or suppor-ng material, cannot cons-tute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Sec-on 5 of the Limita-on Act 1963.

It is well se?led that while the expression “sufficient cause” deserves a liberal construc-on, such liberality cannot extend to condoning gross negligence, casual conduct or concocted explana-ons. The applicant must demonstrate bona fide diligence and a credible explana-on for the en-re period of delay, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. Consequently, the applica-on seeking condona-on of delay is dismissed.

As a necessary corollary, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limita-on. Main Case:

Even otherwise, this Court has examined the ma?er on merits and finds no substance in the appeal. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:18)(cid:17)(cid:1)

The plain-ffs—Jhalman Singh and Avtar Singh (respondents herein), filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance against defendants Jaswinder Kaur and Jaswinder Singh (appellants herein), based on an agreement to sell dated 29.09.2009 executed in their favour by the defendants through their a?orney, Hardeep Singh, for sale of the suit land at the rate of ₹9,00,000/- per acre. A sum of ₹1,10,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before

28.09.2010 upon payment of the balance considera-on. As the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract despite the plain-ffs’ readiness and willingness, the suit was ins-tuted seeking specific performance, or in the alterna-ve, refund of double the earnest money.

The suit was contested by the defendants by pleading that the a?orney, Hardeep Singh, was merely authorized to look a>er the property and had no authority to alienate the same; that any recital in the power of a?orney authorizing aliena-on was a result of misrepresenta-on; that no earnest money was received by them; and that the power of a?orney had already been cancelled by Jaswinder Singh on 19.04.2001 and by Jaswinder Kaur on 01.06.2010.

Upon framing of necessary issues and appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 21.08.2017.

In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal of appellant No.2 Jaswinder Singh on the finding that the power of a?orney in favour of Hardeep Singh had been cancelled on 19.04.2001, i.e. prior to execu-on of the agreement to sell dated 29.09.2009. However, as regards appellant No.1—Jaswinder Kaur, the power of a?orney was cancelled on 01.06.2010, i.e. subsequent to execu-on of the agreement to sell, and therefore, the decree for specific performance was maintained to YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:8)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15) (cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:17)(cid:1) the extent of her half share in the suit property.

Though both defendants preferred the present appeal, the appeal qua appellant No.2 stands withdrawn, as already no-ced.

On behalf of appellant No.1, it has been contended that she did not receive any earnest money and that, as per the plain-ff’s tes-mony, there was no direct nego-a-on or payment between the par-es.

The conten-on is devoid of merit. The consistent case of the plain-ffs has been that the transac-on was nego-ated and concluded through the duly appointed a?orney of appellant No.1 and not directly with her. It is undisputed that Hardeep Singh was her power of a?orney holder at the relevant -me and was authorized to alienate the property. Once an authorized a?orney enters into an agreement to sell within the scope of his authority, the principal is bound by such act and cannot evade contractual obliga-ons merely by denying receipt of considera-on, par-cularly when no ac-on was ever taken against the a?orney. The subsequent death of the a?orney does not dilute the binding nature of the transac-on.

Another conten-on raised regarding alleged deficiency of court fee also deserves rejec-on. A perusal of the record reveals that no such issue was raised before the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. A plea not raised or adjudicated before the Courts below cannot be permi?ed to be urged for the first -me in second appeal.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the appeal is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of limita-on as well as on merits. Ordered accordingly.

21.01.2026 Yogesh (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.22 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document