Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge -I, Ropar dated 19.12.2007 whereby judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.) Ropar dated 5.10.2005 has been upheld and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for the permanent injunction seeking to restrain Surinder Kaur and Ranjit Singh (defendant No. 1 and 2 respectively) from forcibly and illegally interfering into her peaceful possession over the house (suit property) marked as 'ABCD' comprising of rooms, bath room and kitchen etc. bounded as under: East : Ranjit Singh West : Street South : Street North : Street It was claimed by the plaintiff that she is in possession of the house in dispute by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 10.11.1997 executed for a sum of Rs. 3 5,000/ - by Gurbax Sigh s/o Kala Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh r/o Village Kotli, Tehsil and District Ropar. In the written statement, it was alleged that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. The defendant Ranjit Singh filed a civil suit titled as Ranjit Singh v. Harbant Singh for permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession over the house marked as 'ABCD' bounded as North: Gali, South: Gali, East: House of Ranjit Singh and West: Gali. The said suit was dismissed by the Court of Smt. Jatinder Kaur, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ropar on 4.10.1997. The appeal preferred before Additional District Judge -I, Ropar was allowed on 4.12,2001 and Ranjit Singh was declared to be the owner in possession of the house in dispute. It was further held that if during the pendency of the suit, any third person has entered the house at the instance of Harbans Singh, then Ranjit Singh shall be entitled to get the possession of the disputed property by way of execution of the decree. The husband of the plaintiff Hardev Kaur also made a statement before the Court that the disputed house was owned and possessed by Harbans Singh s/o Gurbax Singh. It was also alleged that Ranjit Singh and Shamsher Singh filed a suit against Gurbax Singh and Harbans Singh for their exclusive shares in the property in the Court of Sh. O.P. Goel, Sr. Sub Judge, Ropar which was decreed on 28.7.1980. It was denied that the plaintiff purchased the house from Gurbax Singh vide agreement dated 10.11.1997. It was alleged that the said agreement is forged and fabricated because Gurbax Singh s/o Kahla Singh was never owner of the house in dispute. It was further alleged that Hardev Kaur was owner of the house in dispute which was purchased by the defendant from Harbans Singh s/o Gurbax Singh for a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - and the suit of the plaintiff in this regard was decreed by the Court of Sh. O.P. Goel vide judgment dated 28.7.1980 and thus, Ranjit Singh, Shamsher Singh and Harbans Singh had become the owners of the suit property. The plaintiff filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: (i) Whether plaintiff is in lawful possession over the house in dispute? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff has purchased the house in dispute from Gurbax Singh vide agreement dated 10.11.1997? OPP (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OID (v) Relief.
(3.) THE plaintiff examined Kartar Singh, Numberdar as PW1, Sadhu Singh as PW2 and plaintiff Hardev Kaur herself appeared as PW3. On the other hand, the defendant examined defendant No. 1 Surinder Kaur as DW2. The learned trial Court while dealing with issues No. 1 to 3 together, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove agreement dated 10.11.1997; no site plan of the suit property has been proved on the record; no exact location of the property has been mentioned. The plaintiff has not been able to prove the possession from the factum of purchase from Gurbax Singh vide agreement dated 10.11.1997 and as such, she was not held entitled to decree for permanent injunction. In the appeal, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to examine deed writer to prove the agreement. It was alleged that the plaintiff had filed an application before the Court below but the same was not decided. The first Appellate Court has found that the issues were framed on 12.1.2001 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 21.2.2005 by order of the Court as the plaintiff had failed to complete her evidence. It has also found that the plaintiff did not file any revision against the order of closure of evidence by the order of Court. Thus, it was held by the First Appellate Court that since the plaintiff has failed to complete her evidence within a span of 4 years and has not even challenged the order of closure of evidence, it would amount to review of the order dated 21.2.2005. Moreover, the said evidence was very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff as her entire evidence was based upon the agreement dated 10.11.1997.;