Dismissed

Amar Singh and Anr. v. Jagwinder Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Mar 2012CR/1937/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the Court dismissed the petition for expediting a suit for specific performance, noting delays were partly due to service issues and adjournments. It later directed the lower court to explain the failure of officers to sign judgments with their names.

What did the court decide?

The petition for expediting trial was dismissed; directions issued to call for explanation from lower court officers regarding unsigned orders.

Amar Singh and Anr. Vs Jagwinder Singh and Anr. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 1937 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 1937 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.3.2012

¶4

Amar Singh and another

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

¶7

Jagwinder Singh and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the learned court below for expediting the trial in the suit filed by the respondentsplaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was filed way back in the year 2006 and it is still at the stage of the plaintiffs' evidence. The petitioners are the sufferers on account of delay as they cannot deal with the property involved in the suit. In fact, immediately after legal notice was issued by respondents-plaintiffs before filing of the suit, the petitioners had stated in their reply that the vendee can get the sale deed registered on 30.6.2006 even though the time specified in the agreement to sell had expired.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any reason to direct the learned court below to expedite the trial of the suit considering the fact that initially the defendants could not be served due to their addresses. The issues were framed only on 20.7.2010. Though initially adjournments were sought by the plaintiffs but the zimni orders reproduced in the paper book show that stay application was disposed of only on 10.10.2011. Thereafter, on 22.12.2011, the plaintiffs had examined two

¶15

Civil Revision No. 1937 of 2012 [2]

¶16

witnesses, whose cross-examination was deferred and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence of the plaintiffs.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, no specific directions

¶18

are required to be issued to the court below.

¶19

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶20

A perusal of the zimni orders reproduced in the paper book shows that the officer concerned has not mentioned his name while signing the orders, which is in violation of the directions issued by this court vide letter No. 70-Spl. Gaz. II. 17 dated 9.11.2011.

¶21

Let an explanation of the officer concerned be called for as to why he has failed to comply with the directions.

¶22

The matter be listed in court on 30.4.2012.

¶23

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge

¶24

28.3.2012 mk

Amar Singh and Anr. v. Jagwinder Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh and Anr. v. Jagwinder Singh and Anr.

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

Naresh Mittal Vs Mahender Singh and Another

Ajit Singh Vs Meera Bai & Ors.

Sucha Singh Vs Har Gopal Gupta

Babu Ram & Ors. Vs Durga Mandir & Ors.

Rakesh Sethi Vs Subhash Sethi

Om Pati and Ors. Vs Sat Narain