Dismissed

Ajaib Singh v. Ramesh Chand

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2014RSA/927/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with an appeal in a civil suit for specific performance where the decree was already executed and possession transferred. The appellant sought to argue merits despite the decree satisfaction. This court dismissed the appeal for causing delay through forum shopping and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with assessed costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre.

Ajaib Singh Vs Ramesh Chand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

RSA No.927 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.927 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:26.04.2014

Ajaib Singh

....Appellant

Versus

Ramesh Chand

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶12

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present:- Mr. Rajender Hetwa, Advocate for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶15

Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶16

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL)

¶17

Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.8.2004 was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007. Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant before the First Appellate Court was also dismissed on 4.9.2009.

¶18

Defendant-appellant filed the instant appeal before this Court challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

¶19

Vide order dated 10.03.2010, notice of motion was issued

¶20

Kadian Savita 2014.05.01 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

RSA No.927 of 2010 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

and thereafter, service was completed vide order dated 16.7.2010. Thereafter, appeal could not be argued on behalf of the appellant due to the fact that adjournments were sought and sometime none represented the appellant.

¶24

On 5.2.2014, after noticing the submissions made before this Court, following order was passed:-

¶25

“Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has informed this Court that the impugned judgment and decree has already been executed and a sale deed of the suit property has been registered in the name of the plaintiff-respondent through Court and even he has got the possession with the assistance of the Court.

¶26

Adjourned to 27.03.2014.

¶27

To be shown in the urgent list.”

¶28

Again on 27.03.2014, on the averments made following

¶29

order was passed:-

¶30

“It is not in dispute that the impugned decree has been satisfied and even possession of the suit property has been taken by the plaintiff-respondent through the process of Court.

¶31

Still learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant who is present in Court, states that he wants to argue the case on

¶32

Kadian Savita 2014.05.01 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶33

RSA No.927 of 2010 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

merits.

¶36

List on 31st March, 2014.

¶37

To be shown in the Urgent List.”

¶38

At this stage, orders dated 31.03.2014 and 11.04.2014

¶39

may also be noticed:-

¶40

31.03.2014

¶41

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has instructions to state that the appellant will not press his appeal in case the residential part of the land, which is encircled by a boundary wall, is left over.

¶42

Learned counsel representing the respondent has no objection to the aforesaid submission made, however, he has stated that a tube-well is existing in the part of land encircled by a boundary wall, which is sought to be left over.

¶43

According to counsel for the appellant, the appellant has no objection if the said tube-well is kept common between the parties.

¶44

Let affidavits be filed on behalf of the parties.

¶45

List on 11th April, 2014.

¶46

To be shown in the Urgent List.

¶47

11.04.2014

¶48

Counsel for the appellant states that necessary affidavits in

¶49

Kadian Savita 2014.05.01 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶50

RSA No.927 of 2010 (O&M)

¶51

¶52

terms of the order dated 31.3.2014 shall be filed before the next date of hearing.

¶53

List on 26.4.2014.

¶54

To be shown in the urgent list.

¶55

It is a matter of record that respondent has filed his affidavit dated 11.4.2010 in compliance of order dated 31.3.2014 agreeing to the offer made, yet appellant has failed to file any affidavit.

¶56

Today, Mr. Rajender Hetwa, Advocate for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate is present in the Court and submitted before this Court that appellant has taken the brief from the office of Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate.

¶57

At this stage, Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant and has filed his 'Vakalatnama' executed by the appellant in favour of Mr. Balraj Dhull and Ravinder Bangar, Advocates with no objection from Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate and has stated that they will represent the appellant.

¶58

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to him, appellant wants to argue the case and this Court allowed the counsel to make submissions before this Court. However, he sought adjournment on the ground that he is not ready with the case and has refused to argue the case.

¶59

From the narration of facts, it is clear that appellant is trying to delay the decision of the case by indulging into forum

¶60

Kadian Savita 2014.05.01 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶61

RSA No.927 of 2010 (O&M)

¶62

¶63

shopping. Such a practice by unscrupulous litigants cannot be allowed by this Court. It is nothing but an effort on the part of the appellant to overreach the Court. In these circumstance, this Court has no option but to dismiss the appeal with costs which are assessed at `50,000/-.

¶64

Let the costs be deposited with the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre of the High Court within one month from today.

¶65

April 26, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE

¶66

Kadian Savita 2014.05.01 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Ajaib Singh v. Ramesh Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaib Singh v. Ramesh Chand

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

State of Haryana Thru Home Secretary etc. Vs Sant Ram etc.

Vandana Vs Jahangiri Devi and Ors.

Sukhchain Singh and Ors. Vs M/S Harbans Lal Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Manohar Lal Vs Savita Bahl

Balwinder Singh and Ors. Vs Amarjit Kaur and Ors.

Tahkurdwra Ramji Dass, Kath Ki Kuin, Buria Vs Mangat Ram Verma