Gurdas Singh vs Darshan Singh

RSA-381`6-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 138 )
RSA-3816-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.11.2026
Gurdas Singh
… Appellant
Versus
Darshan Singh
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Bokolia, Advocate
for the appellant.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
CM-14663-C2026
1. Application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from
filing certified copies/true typed copies of the impugned judgment and
decree dated 30.03.2026, passed by the Additional District Judge,
Faridkot, as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2024, passed by
the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, and the grounds of appeal filed
before the First Appellate Court.
2. In view of the grounds stated in the application, the same is
allowed , subject to all just exceptions
CM-14664-C2026
1. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with
Section 151 CPC, seeking condonation of delay of 129 days in filing the
appeal.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3816-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
2. Having regard to the grounds set forth in the application and
the settled principle that a justice-oriented approach ought to prevail over
hyper-technical considerations, particularly where the matter deserves
adjudication on merits, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt a liberal
approach. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 129
days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been preferred
by the appellant-plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated
30.03.2026, passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, affirming
the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2024, passed by the Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Faridkot, whereby the suit seeking rectification of the
sale deed and consequential declaratory relief was dismissed. The
appellant challenges the concurrent findings as legally unsustainable and
contrary to the evidence on record.
2. Brief facts are that the plaintiff pleaded that, after successive
purchases from the defendant’s family, he purchased another 2 kanals from
the defendant vide sale deed dated 04.01.2000. He alleged that, owing to a
typographical error, the wrong khasra number was recorded, although
possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 1080/1 was delivered. Upon
refusal to rectify the alleged error, he instituted the suit seeking correction
of the sale deed and consequential declaratory relief.
3. Upon service of summons, the defendant appeared and
contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability
and the plaintiff’s locus standi. The defendant denied execution of the sale
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3816-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
deed and passing of consideration, alleging that the document was forged
and fabricated, and sought dismissal of the application.
4. Upon careful scrutiny of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed
the following issues for adjudication: -
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for rectification of sale deed no. 3998
dated 04.01.2000, as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration, as prayed for?OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed
for?OPP
4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD
5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
6. Relief
5. Both parties were afforded adequate opportunity to lead
evidence. Upon appraisal of the material on record, the Trial Court
dismissed the suit, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and
decree. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant-plaintiff has
preferred the present appeal.
6. The present appeal assails the concurrent judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below and has been heard on the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable
length and, with his able assistance, having meticulously scrutinised the
pleadings, evidentiary material and findings recorded by the Courts below,
this Court has bestowed anxious consideration upon the controversy
involved.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3816-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
8. This Court finds no perversity or legal infirmity in the
concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the suit instituted by
the appellant-plaintiff was hopelessly barred by limitation. Admittedly, the
sale deed in question was executed on 04.01.2000, wherein the appellant-
plaintiff himself was a party and the sole beneficiary of the transaction.
The present suit, seeking rectification of the sale deed and a consequential
declaration of ownership and possession over land comprised in Khasra
No. 1080, instead of Khasra No. 1081/1 Min., was instituted only in the
year 2019, after an unexplained and inordinate delay.
8.1. The appellant-plaintiff seeks to attribute the discrepancy in the
khasra number to an inadvertent mistake committed at the time of
execution of the sale deed and asserts that he acquired knowledge thereof
only in the year 2018, when he approached the revenue authorities for
sanction of mutation. However, this explanation does not inspire
confidence. The appellant-plaintiff was himself a signatory to the sale deed
and its sole beneficiary. In such circumstances, he cannot plausibly contend
that he remained unaware of the recitals contained therein, particularly
those identifying the property forming the subject matter of the transaction.
The alleged discrepancy was apparent from the instrument itself and could
not have escaped his notice at the time of its execution.
8.2. A suit seeking rectification of an instrument is governed by the
prescribed period of limitation of three years. The appellant-plaintiff
cannot indefinitely postpone the accrual of his cause of action merely by
asserting that he discovered the alleged mistake at a subsequent stage,
particularly when he was himself a party to the instrument containing the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document

RSA-3816-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
disputed particulars. The subsequent approach to the revenue authorities in
the year 2018 would not, in the facts of the present case, furnish a fresh
cause of action so as to revive a claim that had become stale.
8.3. Accordingly, this Court finds that the Courts below have
rightly held that the limitation commenced with reference to the execution
of the sale deed dated 04.01.2000 and that the suit instituted in the year
2019 was beyond the prescribed period. The concurrent findings warrant
no interference. Finding no substantial ground for consideration, the
present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed .
9. In view of the final disposal of the principal matter, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly. No further orders are warranted.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
12.11.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.11.13 10:04
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document