Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance of 1963 Plot Allotments in Eros Gardens; Rejects Limitation, Order II Rule 2 CPC Bar, Grants Equitable Price Adjustment
Case Name: M/s R.C. Sood & Company Ltd. vs. Indra Sethi; M/s R.C. Sood & Company Ltd. vs. C.K. Anand & Another
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: RSA No. 2736 of 2007 and RSA No. 2737 of 2007
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeals filed by the developer, affirming concurrent decrees granting specific performance of agreements to sell residential plots executed in 1963. The Court held that the suits were neither barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act nor hit by Order II Rule 2 CPC, and that the plaintiffs had continuously demonstrated readiness and willingness. While upholding specific performance, the Court moulded relief by directing an equitable enhancement of consideration and permitting allotment of alternative plots if the original plots were unavailable.
Summary: The litigation concerned long-pending claims for specific performance relating to plots in the Eros Gardens colony near Suraj Kund, Faridabad. The developer had agreed in 1963 to sell plots to the plaintiffs, who paid substantial portions of the consideration. Subsequent statutory regimes regulating urban development delayed approvals, and the developer repeatedly cited regulatory impediments. Earlier rounds of litigation culminated in a High Court decision holding that the allotments subsisted and were never lawfully cancelled.
After regulatory issues were resolved, the plaintiffs sought specific performance. The trial courts decreed the suits, and the first appellate court affirmed. In second appeal, the developer raised objections including alleged cancellation in the 1960s, bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC due to an earlier injunction suit, limitation, lack of readiness and willingness, and inequity due to escalation of land prices.
The High Court rejected these contentions. It held that the cause of action for specific performance matured only after the developer’s refusal post-resolution of statutory impediments and conclusion of earlier proceedings. The earlier injunction suit arose from a distinct cause of action and did not bar the present suits. The plaintiffs’ conduct over decades, including correspondence, payments, and persistent litigation, established readiness and willingness. Escalation in land prices could not defeat a valid contract, particularly where delay was attributable to the developer.
Decision: Both appeals were dismissed. The decrees for specific performance were affirmed. As an equitable adjustment, the plaintiffs were directed to deposit an additional amount equivalent to 25% of the original total consideration within three months, failing which the decrees would not be executable. If the original plots were unavailable, the developer was directed to allot equivalent alternative plots in the same project. The directions were made applicable mutatis mutandis to both connected appeals.