Disposed

Jagdish v. Om Parkash and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Feb 2011CR/4355/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a compromise order, the High Court set aside the trial court's rejection of an application for a fresh written statement on grounds of fraud. The matter was remitted to the trial court to frame an issue regarding the alleged fraud and decide based on evidence within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to trial court to frame an issue on fraud and decide within three months based on evidence.

Jagdish Vs Om Parkash and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.4355 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CR No.4355 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.2.2011

Jagdish

.....Petitioner

Vs.

Om Parkash and others ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner lays challenge to an order dated 29.5.2009, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, rejecting the petitioner's prayer to file a fresh written statement, as the written statement dated 2.8.2004 has been filed by fraud.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to file written statement admitting the agreement to sell. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for permission to file a fresh written statement. The trial court should have allowed the petitioner to prove the alleged fraud instead of rejecting the application.

¶15

Counsel for the respondents submits that as there is no material, on record, to support the petitioner's plea, his application was, therefore, rightly rejected.

¶16

After addressing their respective arguments, counsel for the parties have argued that as the petitioner has raised a plea of fraud, the trial

¶17

¶18

CR No.4355 of 2009

¶19

court should have, before rejecting the application, granted an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his plea by leading evidence. It is also agreed between counsel for the parties that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the trial court in the following terms :-

¶20

The trial court shall frame an issue to the following effect :-

¶21

(a) “Whether the written statement dated 2.8.2004 has been filed by perpetuating a fraud ? OPD No.1.

¶22

(b) After affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, decide the application in accordance with the evidence adduced.

¶23

(c ) In case the petitioner succeeds in proving the alleged fraud, the fresh written statement shall be taken on record but in case, the petitioner fails to prove his plea of fraud, the suit would be decided on the basis of the written statement dated 2.8.2004.”

¶24

In view of the consensus between counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of in the above terms. The trial court is directed to decide the issue with respect to fraud within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 1.3.2011. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.

¶26

3.2.2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE

Jagdish v. Om Parkash and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. Om Parkash and Ors.

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

Moul Deen and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Suresh Kumar @ Bansi Vs J.S. Yadav and Others

Pb.State etc. Vs Surinder Kumar and Another

Sheetal Vij Vs Sudesh Puri and Ors.

Bhoop Singh & Anr. Vs S.C. Vashishta

Ankur Makkar Vs Rakesh Mohan Sharma and Ors.