SARABJIT SINGH Vs. SARJIWAN KUMAR
LAWS(P&H)-2012-9-362
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 03,2012

SARABJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
SARJIWAN KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Main Case : In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant Sarabjit Singh has assailed order dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1) filed by defendant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) for impleading Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh as party defendants no.2 and 3 to the suit, which has been instituted by respondent-plaintiff Sarjiwan Kumar against defendantpetitioner. Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs.22,00,000/- against defendant-petitioner, which includes Rs.11,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs.11,00,000/- as damages. The defendant allegedly agreed to sell 79 kanals 04 marlas land to the plaintiff vide agreement dated 09.01.2006 and received Rs.11,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendant claimed himself to be owner in possession of the said land on the basis of some agreement in his favour, but the defendant has not been able to perform the contract.
(2.) The defendant-petitioner, in his application, alleged that in fact, both the parties as well as Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh were jointly carrying on business as Property Dealers and they used to purchase and sell land to earn profits by entering into agreement. In this process, agreement of the aforesaid land was entered into with Mohinder Singh etc. in favour of Jagtar Singh and earnest money of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid to vendors Mohinder Singh etc. by both the parties herein along with Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh jointly, although agreement was in favour of Jagtar Singh only. Subsequently, Jagtar Singh agreed to sell the land to Baljinder Singh, who further executed agreement thereof in favour of the defendant.
(3.) However, no money exchanged hands vide these subsequent agreements. In January 2006, dispute arose between the partners and the defendant demanded his share in the earnest money. Thereupon, his share in the earnest money was paid after obtaining his signatures on blank stamp papers, which had been used to prepare the impugned agreement by the plaintiff. It was also alleged that plaintiff had lodged FIR, in which plaintiff has effected compromise with Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh. On these averments, defendant sought impleadment of Jagtar Singh and Baljinder Singh as party defendants no.2 and 3 to the suit.;


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