Allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2012CR/2195/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two civil revision petitions challenging an order closing evidence against subsequent purchasers in a suit for possession by specific performance. The court set aside the impugned order, granted one additional opportunity to lead evidence, imposed costs, and warned against further delays.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting the date for leading evidence closed against petitioner-set aside; petitioner granted one more opportunity to conclude evidence on 29.5.2012 subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as c

Kailash Rani @ Kailash Wanti and Ors. Vs Mamta… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2195 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: 2.5.2012

¶4

(1) Civil Revision No. 2195 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Smt. Kailash Rani @ Kailash Wanti and others

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Mamta Rani and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

(2) Civil Revision No. 2281 of 2012 (O&M)

Smt. Anjana

.. Petitioner

Mamta Rani and others

¶15

.. Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶17

Present: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶18

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶19

This order will dispose of above-mentioned two petitions bearing Civil Revision Nos. 2195 and 2281 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

¶20

Both the petitions arise out of one suit where defendants No. 5 to 7 and 9 are before this court impugning the order dated 20.3.2012, whereby their evidence was closed by order of the court.

¶21

The proceedings arise out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell filed by respondent No. 1- plaintiff. The petitioners are the subsequent purchasers.

¶22

Civil Revision No. 2195 of 2012 [2]

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are illiterate women. They were not properly guided by their counsel to lead evidence. In fact, earlier the evidence of other defendants was going on. It was only after conclusion thereof that the petitioners could lead their evidence. The plaintiff had availed of number of opportunities to conclude her evidence. The evidence of the defendants started only on 7.6.2011. There is no intention of the petitioners to delay the proceedings. In case, one opportunity is granted, they would conclude their evidence. The case is stated to be fixed for 29.5.2012.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1- plaintiff submitted that five effective opportunities were granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence including last opportunity. The object of the petitioners is only to delay the disposal of the suit. Counsel for the petitioners was present on each and every date of hearing in the court. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, they do not deserve to be granted any further opportunity to lead evidence.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

¶26

book.

¶27

The petitioners, as claimed, are the subsequent purchasers of the property regarding which a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell has been filed by respondent No. 1- plaintiff. No doubt, five opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead evidence but stand of the petitioners being different, as they wanted to protect their right being bonafide purchasers, could lead evidence only after the evidence of other defendants was over. A perusal of the zimni orders produced on record shows that evidence of defendants No. 3 and 4 was closed on 17.1.2012. In that very order, it is noticed that defendant No. 1 had already closed his evidence. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for evidence of defendants No. 5 to 9 and on the next date of hearing, the same was closed by order of the court.

¶28

In view of my aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, one opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside and the petitioners are granted one opportunity to conclude their evidence on the date already fixed before the court below, i.e., 29.5.2012. However, the

¶29

Civil Revision No. 2195 of 2012 [3]

¶30

same shall be subject to payment of ` 5,000/- as cost, which shall be paid to respondent No. 1-plaintiff by way of demand draft before the court below on the next date of hearing. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be given to the petitioners to lead evidence.

¶31

The petitions stand disposed of.

¶32

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶33

2.5.2012 mk

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ishwar Singh Vs Mukesh @ Pataso

Brahma Nand Ashram Vs Govt. College, Safidon and Anr.

Pyare Lal Vs Dhbvnl and Others

Ram Sawrup and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mehar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.