Allowed

Satnarain v. Charan Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CR/1470/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a civil revision challenging the dismissal of an application for additional evidence. The court set aside the lower court's order and directed the petitioner to be given one chance to examine a witness to prove fraud, subject to payment of costs. Disposition: Allowed (Revocation of dismissal of additional evidence).

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.11.2011 set aside. Petitioner granted one opportunity to conclude evidence to examine a witness regarding fraud.

Satnarain Vs Charan Singh — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1470 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 1470 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.5.2012

Satnarain

.. Petitioner

Charan Singh

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶13

The defendant is before this court impugning the order dated 23.11.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed by order of the Court and order dated 13.1.2012, whereby application for additional evidence was dismissed.

¶14

The proceedings arise out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell filed by the respondent-plaintiff.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been leading evidence in the case in defence. However, one material witness, namely, Deed Writer to prove an agreement to sell earlier executed is to be examined. In fact, the agreement in question is a result of fraud and specific plea to that effect has already been taken in the written statement. By earlier agreement, the land in question was shown to have been agreed to be sold to the brother of the respondent-plaintiff @ 1,85,000/- per acre, whereas in the case in hand, though the agreement is subsequent in time, but the rate of the land has been shown at 1,65,000/- per acre. This itself shows the same to be not genuine. He prayed for grant of one opportunity to conclude his evidence.

¶16

Civil Revision No. 1470 of 2012 [2]

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that eight effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. The agreement in question is a registered document. The respondent had never sought any adjournment. The object of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings as he is in possession of the property. The evidence sought to be led by the petitioner is not relevant for the case in hand. Considering the conduct, he does not deserve to be granted any further opportunity to lead evidence.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

¶19

book.

¶20

The interim orders passed by the learned court below on various dates have been produced with the paper book. It is not that the petitioner had not led any evidence during the period he was afforded opportunities for the purpose. No doubt, there is some lapse. However, still considering the fact that the suit is also not very old. The purpose for which the petitioner seeks to produce the only witness is to show that the agreement in question is a result of fraud. Specific plea to that effect has been taken in the written statement. In my opinion, the petitioner deserves to be granted one opportunity to conclude his evidence. The next date of hearing fixed before the learned court below is stated to be 7.5.2012.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.11.2011, passed by the learned court below is set aside. The petitioner is afforded one opportunity to conclude his evidence. However, the same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost to the respondent-plaintiff, which shall be paid by way of demand draft.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of.

¶23

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶24

3.5.2012 mk

Satnarain v. Charan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnarain v. Charan Singh

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

Rakesh Kumar Vs Punjab Khadi Mandal

Kailash Rani @ Kailash Wanti and Ors. Vs Mamta Rani and Ors.

Anjana Vs Mamta Rani and Ors.

Shamey Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana Thru Collector, Kaithal & Ors.

Shanti and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rameshwar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.