Allowed

Rehmati v. Aamin & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Nov 2009CR/6416/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner (defendant) filed a revision under Article 227 challenging an order closing her evidence in a specific performance suit for incomplete examination. The High Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the case to allow the petitioner one month to conclude evidence upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated October 23, 2009 set aside. Direction to grant petitioner one month to conclude evidence upon payment of costs.

Rehmati Vs Aamin & Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R. No. 6416 of 2009 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶3

CHANDIGARH.

¶4

C.R. No. 6416 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 5, 2009

Rehmati

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Aamin and others

…..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶11

-.-

¶12

Present:Ms. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

-.-

¶14

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Defendant has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated October 23, 2009 closing the evidence of the defendant by order as the defendant- petitioner failed to conclude her evidence despite having availed numerous opportunities. Plaintiff- respondent No.1 has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated May 21, 2005, against respondent No.2-Jaffru. Jaffru is stated to have been proceeded against ex-

¶16

C.R. No. 6416 of 2009 [2]

¶17

parte. So far as defendant- petitioner is concerned, her claim is that she had purchased the property in dispute by virtue of a sale deed dated February 9, 2005 prior to the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed in favour of plaintiffs. The defendant- petitioner claims that she has not even examined herself and has not been able to substantiate her plea of being a purchaser prior to the agreement of sale in dispute. With the assistance of counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the copy of the written statement filed by petitioner before the trial Court wherein the plea of being a purchaser vide sale deed dated February 9, 2005 has been specifically taken. There does not appear to be any error in the impugned order as the defendant seems to have adopted a casual approach.

¶18

Taking into consideration the nature of the stakes and the specific plea having been taken by the petitioner regarding a registered sale deed executed in her favour, she, in the interest of justice could have been granted a fair opportunity to substantiate her case by evidence subject to payment of some reasonable costs.

¶19

The revision petition is allowed in limine. The order dated October 23, 2009 is hereby set aside. A direction is issued to the effect that the defendant- petitioner will be given opportunity to conclude her entire evidence within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. It is further directed that the trial Court will give two opportunities in a period of one month to the defendant- petitioner to conclude her evidence. It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid before the trial Court on next date of

¶20

C.R. No. 6416 of 2009 [3]

¶21

hearing, this petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. Copy of the order be communicated to the trial Court through fax by the Registry.

¶22

November 5, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Rehmati v. Aamin & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehmati v. Aamin & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh Vs Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

Jal Kaur & Anr. Vs Kirpal Singh & Ors.

Usha Rani Vs Vijay Kumar and Ors.

Ram Dia Vs Kehar Singh

Raj Bala Vs Subhash Chand & Ors.

Mehal Singh Vs Dharminder Kaur & Ors.