- (1.) THE crux of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, initially, Vijay Kumar son of Bakhtawar Lal -respondent No.1 -plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") has instituted the civil suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 05.08.2002 in respect of the land in dispute against Partap Singh son of Jiwa Singh -petitionercontesting defendant No.1(for short "the contesting defendant") and proforma respondent No.2 -defendant No.2.
(2.) HAVING framed the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, ultimately, the case was slated for evidence of the contesting defendant. The trial Court closed his evidence, vide impugned order dated 08.10.2013(Annexure P -3). The application(Annexure P -5) to recall the order(Annexure P -3), was dismissed as well, by way of separate impugned order dated 05.03.2014(Annexure P -6) by the trial Court.
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioner -contesting defendant has preferred the present petition, invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the very outset, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to respondent No.1 -plaintiff, in order to save him from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when he can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, however, in case, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the order, in any manner, he would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs.;