Dismissed

Komal Goel v. Subash Chander

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2010CR/1087/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged closure of evidence in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Court dismissed the petition, holding no need for a handwriting expert report as the adversary admitted prior signatures, and referring merits of loan claim to evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Civil Revision was dismissed; no further opportunity granted for the proposed evidence at this stage.

Komal Goel Vs Subash Chander — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1087 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No. 1087 of 2010 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: 12.3.2010

Smt. Komal Goel

... .Petitioner

Versus

Subash Chander ... Respondent

¶10

CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal

¶11

Present:Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.C. Kapur, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

RAJESH BINDAL, J

¶14

The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the learned Court below closing the evidence of the petitioner/defendant, by order of the Court. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sell dated 16.2.2004 in which the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was closed on September 1, 2008. Thereafter, a number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner/defendant, however, the same having not been concluded the evidence was ultimately closed by order.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that infact the petitioner never agreed to sell the property in question to the respondent. The husband of the petitioner used to raise loan from the respondent and as security the agreement in question was signed. Even prior thereto also similar agreements were signed which were returned back after the amount of loan was repaid. All other agreements were confronted to the respondent/plaintiff in his cross-examination, but he denied his signatures thereon. It is to prove these signatures that the report of the handwriting expert is required. Though there is some lapse on the part of the petitioner but that being the material evidence one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to produce that evidence.

¶16

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent submitted that signatures on the earlier agreements were admitted by the respondent/plaintiff in his cross-examination when those documents were confronted to him. Hence, there is no need of a report of a handwriting expert.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

¶18

Once the respondent/plaintiff had admitted his signatures on the earlier agreements to sell, there is no need to prove his signatures on those

¶19

Civil Revision No. 1087 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

documents by producing handwriting expert. As far as the claim of the petitioner regarding the agreements having been signed to secure the loan raised by her husband is concerned, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below on the basis of evidence led by the parties.

¶22

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

12.3.2010 Reema

¶24

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

Komal Goel v. Subash Chander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Goel v. Subash Chander

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Chand Vs State of Hy.

Dharampal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rattan Lal and Ors. Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

(O&M) M/S Gargi Overseas Private Limited, Karnal and Another Vs Shri Puran Singh Alias Puran Chand and Another

Union of India and Anr. Vs Gurpal Singh

Sunil Vs Raj Kumar