Partly allowed

Sultan Nath and Ors. v. Naseeb Kaur

Rajasthan HC18 Mar 2015CFA/294/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the first appeal wherein the suit for specific performance of a contract regarding agricultural land was dismissed. The Court held that the settlement of the suit involves fresh evidence: it set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and ordered that, upon payment of costs to the respondent, the application for restoration of suit be filed before the trial court for

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of; the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.2013 are set aside; the trial court is directed to hold a fresh trial subject to payment of costs.

Sultan Nath and Ors. Vs Naseeb Kaur — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.294/2013. Sultan Nath S/o Sh. Hansraj Vs. Naseeb Kaur W/o Mukand Singh

¶2

Order dated 18/03/2015

¶3

1/4

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶5

AT JODHPUR.

¶6

:: O R D E R ::

¶7

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.294/2013.

¶8

Sultan Nath S/o Sh. Hansraj, by caste Nath & Ors. Vs. Naseeb Kaur W/o Mukand Singh, by caste Jat Sikh

¶9

Date of Order

¶10

th :::: 18 March, 2015.

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

Mr. G.R. Goyal, for the appellant/plaintiffs. Mr. B.S. Sandhu, for the respondent/defendant.

¶15

¶16

BY THE COURT :

¶17

The appellants-plaintiffs, Sultan Nath S/o Sh. Hansraj and two others, have preferred this first appeal assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.05.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, in Civil Original Suit No.229/2012 (87/2012) and (139/2008) - Sultan Nath & Ors. Vs. Naseeb Kaur, whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract dated 07.02.2007 executed by the respondent/defendant, Smt. Naseeb Kaur, with respect to suit agricultural land measuring 2 Bigha situated in Kila No.24 and 25 of Chak 41 LLW, Hanumangarh for a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/-, was dismissed on the ground

¶18

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.294/2013. Sultan Nath S/o Sh. Hansraj Vs. Naseeb Kaur W/o Mukand Singh

¶19

Order dated 18/03/2015

¶20

2/4

¶21

that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence despite grant of opportunities by the learned trial court.

¶22

Mr. G.R. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that although affidavits of the witnesses were filed before the learned trial court vide the order sheet dated 29.11.2011 post-script entry, which order-sheet is also quoted herein below, however, the evidence of the appellants was closed, which resulted in dismissal of the suit for specific performance of contract with respect to suit land. The order-sheet dated 29.11.2011 reads as under: -

¶23

“ 29.11.11

¶24

अध�वक� उभय पक उपस��त।

¶25

श�म�न PO मह�दय ननर�कण म� ब�हर प��र� ह । पत�वल� व��त� स�कय व�द� ददन�&क 28.1.2012 क� प�श ह�।

¶26

Sd/स)ल� नय�य��श हन+म�नगढ (र�).)”

¶27

प+नश: वक/ल व�द� न� गव�ह स+लत�न, रपन��, अमरक+ म�र, र�)�न1 क+ म�र क� शप� पत प�श ककय�। नकल वक/ल पनतपक क� ददल�ई। Cost अद�यग� .. समय च�ह�। पत�वल� व��त� अद�यग� cost व स)रह ददन�&क 28.1.12 क� प�श ह�। PO स�हब आ) ननर�कण म� ब�हर प��र� ह ।

¶28

Sd/स)ल� नय�य��श हन+म�नगढ (र�).)”

¶29

Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that in

¶30

the interest of justice, the appellants/plaintiffs may be allowed to

¶31

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.294/2013. Sultan Nath S/o Sh. Hansraj Vs. Naseeb Kaur W/o Mukand Singh

¶32

Order dated 18/03/2015

¶33

3/4

¶34

now lead evidence before the learned trial court, subject to payment of reasonable costs, to be paid to the defendant and the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial court for deciding the suit on merits after allowing the parties to lead their respective evidence.

¶35

On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Sandhu, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and also the restoration of the suit/remand.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that since the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for specific performance of contract dated 07.02.2007 was dismissed in the absence of the evidence of the appellants/plaintiffs although the affidavits of the plaintiffs' witnesses were filed, thus, in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the defendant/respondent by the appellants/plaintiffs, and upon such payment, the application for restoration of suit along with receipt of payment of costs of Rs.5000/- may be filed before the learned trial court and there upon trial court may hold fresh trial allowing opportunity to the plaintiffs to complete their evidence and, thereafter proceed to take defence evidence and then decide the suit on merits accordingly.

¶37

S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL No.294/2013. Sultan Nath S/o Sh. Hansraj Vs. Naseeb Kaur W/o Mukand Singh

¶38

Order dated 18/03/2015

¶39

4/4

¶40

Resultantly, the present first appeal of the appellants/plaintiffs is disposed of. The judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 07.05.2013 is set aside. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the trial court below forthwith.

¶41

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶42

DJ/7

Sultan Nath and Ors. v. Naseeb Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan Nath and Ors. v. Naseeb Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazari Lal Vs Shyam Lal

Lrs.of Janki Lal Vs Dharmi Chand

Sunil Kumar Vs Lrs.of Hem Raj and Anr.

Kanti Lal Vs Kanti Lal and Ors.

Vikram Bishnoi Vs State and Anr.

Lrs.of Ram Dev Vs Smt.Suvati Devi and Ors.