Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners -plaintiffs aggrieved against orders dt. 03.05.2014 passed by the trial Court, whereby, applications filed by the petitioners under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('the Act') and Sec. 39 of the Stamp Act, 1998 ('Stamp Act') have been rejected. The petitioners filed suits for specific performance of oral agreement and agreement dt. 18.07.2003 and mandatory & permanent injunction against the defendants; it was, inter alia, claimed that the respondents proposed to sale shops to the petitioners and, in this regard, an oral agreement was entered into between the parties and, in pursuance thereof, a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/ - was paid through cheques and receipts in the form of agreements were given by the respondents along with layout plan of the proposed complex; it is claimed that on account of inaction on the part of the defendants, the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of the contract.
(2.) The respondents filed written statements admitting entering into agreement and receiving the sum, but it was alleged that the agreement entered into between the parties cannot be said to be an agreement as per the provisions of law.
(3.) During the pendency of the suits, the petitioners filed applications under Order XI, Rule 14 CPC for summoning documents from the respondents, which was allowed and the respondents were directed either to submit the documents or submit their affidavits with regard to documents in question and the applications were disposed of on 23.05.2013 on the ground that the respondents have denied the possession of the documents and defendant -Mulakhraj was directed to file an affidavit in this regard.;