JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) This writ petition has been submitted by the defendant in a
suit for specific performance assailing the order dated 21.09.2004
(Annex.5) passed by the learned trial court refusing his applications
under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 and under Order 8
Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
(2.) Brief relevant facts are that the petitioner is defending a suit
filed by the respondent No.1 seeking specific performance of an
alleged agreement for sale of agricultural land situated at Chak 5
MLD(A) in Murraba Nos.48/56 and 38/64 measuring about 50
bighas. The existence and validity of the agreement is seriously in
question. The plaintiff asserts existence of the agreement and his
right to have the same specifically performed; whereas the
defendant-petitioner maintains the agreement to be a fabricated
document and being unenforceable in law. On 23.07.2004, the trial
court framed as many as nine issues on the questions involved in
the suit which read as under:-
A perusal of record shows that after framing of issues, the
matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence on 11.08.2004. On this
date, the plaintiff moved an application for summoning of the
original agreement dated 13.01.1984. The learned trial court passed
an order requisitioning the said document from the Station House
Officer, Police Station, Anoopgarh. On the next date of hearing, i.e.
21.08.2004 another application was moved by the plaintiff under
Order 13 Rule 10 CPC and directions were issued to the Station
House Officer, Police Station, Anoopgarh to send the original
agreement alongwith FSL report. On these dates of 11.08.2004 and
21.08.2004 though several witnesses of the plaintiff were present
but none of them was examined.
(3.) On the next date of hearing i.e. 03.09.2004, the documents
required by the court were received but the defendant-petitioner
moved the applications aforesaid under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order
8 Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking permission to amend the written
statement and to produce further documents. The plaintiff also
moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. On that date,
learned trial court received copy of an order dated 09.08.2004
passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1154/2004
wherein this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in
relation to the property in dispute and directed the trial court to
decide the matter within six months. The learned trial court,
therefore, ordered that regular proceedings be taken in the suit
curbing against long adjournments.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.