SEWA SINGH Vs. SWINDER KAUR
LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-10
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 02,2012

SEWA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Swinder Kaur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.N.JINDAL, J. - (1.) THE Sub Judge, Ist Class, Tarn Taran, vide judgment dated 15.10.1994, had dismissed the application filed by the applicants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, for referring the dispute pertaining to the agreement dated 11.08.1988, to the sole Arbitrator, whereas the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide order dated 06.11.1996, had accepted the appeal and referred the matter to the sole Arbitrator with the direction that he should enter upon the reference and give an Award within four months from the date the parties appear before him.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that Prito @ Pritam Kaur had executed an agreement to sell dated 11.08.1988 in favour of Swinder Kaur and Jagir Kaur-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 qua the land measuring 12 Kanals bearing Khasra No.30/6 (6 Kanals), 31/10 (4 Kanals) and received a sum of Rs.30,000/- as earnest money. The sale deed was to be registered by 08.11.1988. As per the agreement, in case of any dispute between the parties, the matter was to be referred to the sole Arbitrator namely Amrik Singh, Numberdar of Tarn Taran. It was alleged that the respondents were ready to perform their part of the contract, but the petitioners (successors-in-interest of Prito @ Pritam Kaur) had committed default on account of the death of said Prito @ Pritam Kaur. As such, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application before the trial Court to refer the matter to the sole Arbitrator. The petitioners, in their reply, denied the execution of the agreement to sell in dispute. Rather, it was pleaded that Pritam Kaur had executed an agreement to sell dated 10.02.1988 in favour of Kartar Singh and Chanan Singh and received a sum of Rs.15,000/- as earnest money from them. It was further alleged that on the stipulated date, the said Kartar Singh and Chanan Singh did not turn up to get the sale deed executed. Ultimately, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of the application.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the agreement dated 11.08.1988 exists between the parties? OPA 2. Relief. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.