In a second appeal regarding a property suit dismissed for failure to lead evidence, the Court held that since sufficient adjournments were previously granted, the appeal raises no substantial question of law and is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.2543 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2543 of 2010
Date of Decision: January 18, 2012
Malkiat Singh
.......Appellant
Versus
Kesar Singh and others
.......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms.Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the respondents.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
RSA No.2543 of 2010 2
the plaintiff but it so transpired that later on, the same was acquired by the State of Punjab and compensation given to Arjan Singh had been duly passed on to the legal representatives of Bhajan Singh and an agreement as well as receipt in token thereof had been duly executed. It was, thus, pleaded that on the basis of exchange-deed, the father of the plaintiff became owner in possession and the plaintiff inherited the said land. The plaintiff had also pleaded as regards purchase of yet another piece of land vide sale-deed dated 1.3.1994 and as such, he is the owner of total land of 3 Kanals and 16 Marlas. It was alleged that the defendants in connivance with each other had threatened to dispossess the plaintiff and hence, the suit.
RSA No.2543 of 2010 3
impugned judgment and decree is very harsh in terms of having closed his evidence resulting in dismissal of his suit. He, accordingly, contends that he should be granted further opportunity to lead his evidence on payment of cost.
RSA No.2543 of 2010 4
would not interfere to come to the rescue of such a careless and negligent litigant. The present second appeal has to proceed as regards determination
of substantial question of law and not on equity.
arises for determination in the present second appeal.
JANUARY 18, 2012
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can grant further opportunity to lead evidence in a second appeal after the first appellate court had found sufficient adjournments were granted.
Whether the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal based on Order 17 Rule 3 CPC raises a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of IndiaExplained¶26
Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 530
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Malkiat Singh
Kesar Singh and others
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
