Dismissed

Jagdev Singh and Ors. v. Rajinder Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2012CR/291/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision against an order directing defendants to lead evidence on an amended issue concerning specific performance and bona fide purchase, the High Court dismissed the revision, holding the amendment was a corrective measure and not a lacuna.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed with no interference in the impugned order of the trial court.

Jagdev Singh and Ors. Vs Rajinder Kaur and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.291 of 2012 Date of Decision: 1.03.2012.

¶3

Jagdev Singh and others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajinder Kaur and another

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

¶9

Present : Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL)

¶11

This revision has been filed by defendants No.5 to 8 & 10 against the order dated December 4^th , 2011 (Annexure P7) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh, whereby he amended the issue in suit titled `Rajinder Kaur Vs. Ajmer Singh and others' for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated July 21^st , 2001 executed by Ajmer Singh-defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff and subsequently the suit land was sold by defendant No.1 to defendants No.3 to 10.

¶12

Issue No.6 was framed as to whether “ whether defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser for value without notice on the basis of sale deed dated 6.11.2002 from defendant No.1?OPD ” . Thereafter, an application was moved by the plaintiff to amend the issue because in the earlier issue, it was wrongly mentioned that defendant No.2 was bonafide purchaser of the land in view of the sale deed executed on November 6^th , 2002 by defendant No.1 in his favour, whereas in fact the sale deed was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 to 10. Since the issue was amended, the defendants were directed to lead their evidence on the issue.

¶13

Civil Revision No.291 of 2012 -2-

¶14

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners should not have been directed to lead the evidence on the amended issue because the witnesses have already been examined by the defendants and the examination of witnesses would tantamount to filling up the lacuna.

¶15

The plea was that defendants No.3 to 10 were bonafide purchasers for value. They were the persons to whom the suit property was sold by defendant No1. However, in the issue as framed originally by the trial Court 'defendant No.2' instead of defendants No.3 to 10 was mentioned. That was an error liable to be corrected. By re-framing the issue correctly, the trial Court adopted the right and the legal course.

¶16

The plea taken now that it will tantamount to filling up lacuna is far fetched and untenable.

¶17

In view of above, no interference is required in the impugned order.

¶18

Dismissed.

¶19

(NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 1.03.2012 Ishwar

Jagdev Singh and Ors. v. Rajinder Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdev Singh and Ors. v. Rajinder Kaur 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

Newal Singh Vs Hari Ram and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs Harsharan Singh and Ors.

Piyush Colonisers Ltd. Vs Narender Aggarwal & Anr.

Chhinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Chhinder Singh and Ors.

Sohan Singh Vs Ajaib Singh and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Balbir Singh