CS/19/2025 of M/S HAND CORNER STONE LLP Vs VASU BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER on 4 August 2026

2026:HHC:33104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Suit No. 19 of 2025 Date of decision: 04.08.2026 M/S Hand Corner Stone LLP

...Plaintiff. Versus Vasu Bhardwaj & another

...Defendants.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the plaintiff : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the defendants : Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashisht, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The instant suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking following reliefs:

a) Suit for Possession by way of Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 17.12.2022 executed by Defendant No. 1, Vasu Bhardwaj, for purchasing land measuring 39 Bighas, bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/43, Khasra No. 290, 287 situated at Mohal Kothi, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

b) Suit for Declaration that the Legal Notice dated 15.11.2024, Legal Notice dated 17.12.2024, Legal Notice dated 27.12.2024 and 23.02.2025 issued by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, whereby the aforesaid agreements to sell have been illegally terminated, are null and void and the said legal notices have no affect upon the rights of the Plaintiff in any manner. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2026:HHC:33104

c) Suit for Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to assist and provide all necessary documents, applications, and other relevant materials required to proceed with the process of obtaining the necessary permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, which is a condition precedent for the execution of sale deed in favor of the Plaintiff as per the terms and conditions of the agreements to sell in question.

d) Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents from transferring, alienating or mortgaging or from creating any kind of interest in regard to the land in question, to any person other than the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice.

e) Or, in the alternative, in the event that this Hon'ble Court finds that the relief of specific performance cannot be granted, it is further prayed that a decree for recovery of Rs. 48,00,000/- (Forty eight Lakhs only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization, may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants.

f) Award cost of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.

2. The said suit came to be resisted by filing comprehensive written statement on behalf of the defendants, whereby all the averments as made in the plaint have been specifically refuted and denied. As per defendants, since the present plaintiff is non- -3- 2026:HHC:33104 agriculturist, therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, it is debarred from purchasing the suit land in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

3. It is heartening to note that during the pendency of the suit, the parties have entered into compromise, and for placing on record the said compromise deed, OMP No. 800 of 2026 has been filed alongwith compromise which has been entered into between the parties. It has been stipulated in the application that the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, and the original compromise deed has been annexed as Exhibit C-1. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the parties have mutually agreed to terminate and cancel the agreements forming the subject matter of the present litigation. The defendants have agreed to refund/return the amounts received from the plaintiff, and in consideration thereof, the plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the instant Civil Suit.

4. As per the averments made in the application, the compromise has been executed voluntarily by the parties out of their own free will, without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence exercised upon them from any quarter. The compromise deed has been duly signed by both parties, and the same is duly acknowledged by the respective counsel for the parties.

-4- 2026:HHC:33104

5. In view of the compromise deed (Exhibit C-1), OMP No. 800 of 2026 is allowed, and in terms of the settlement amicably arrived at between the parties, the suit stands decided, having been compromised.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the requisite Court fee affixed on the plaint may be refunded to the plaintiff. The requisite Court fee, as permissible under the law, is ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff as per the prevailing Rules.

7. Therefore, in view of the compromise inter se the parties, the present suit stands disposed of as having been compromised. The compromise deed Exhibit C-1 shall form part of the decree, and decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge August 4, 2026. (Nisha)

-5- 2026:HHC:33104 > The suit has been duly resisted by the defendants, whereby all the averments as made in the plaint have been specifically refuted and denied. > It has been contended by Mr. Vashisth that in view of the provisions as contained under Section 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the plaintiff is barred from purchasing the suit land in the State of Himachal Pradesh. > That the defendants have specifically refuted the contentions alleged in the plaint and they have prayed for the dismissal of the suit. It is heartening to note that during the pendency of the civil suit, the parties have entered into a compromise, and for placing on record the said compromise deed, the instant OMP No. 800 of 2026 has been filed. > In view of the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, whereby it has been incorporated that the parties have mutually agreed to terminate and cancel the agreements forming the subject matter of the present litigation, the defendants have agreed to refund/return the amounts received from the plaintiff, and in consideration thereof, the plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the present civil suit. > It has been contended in the application that in view of the compromise, the plaintiff does not wish to pursue the suit…"