Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, plaintiff in Title Suit No. 126 of 2010, is aggrieved of order dated 19.05.2011 by which his application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave of the Court to file replication has been declined.
(2.) Stand taken by the petitioner is that to clarify certain facts which have been pleaded by the defendant in her written statement he is entitled to file replication. Another plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the defendant in her statement has suppressed certain facts and made false statements which has necessitated replication to the plaint.
(3.) Title Suit No. 126 of 2010 was instituted for a decree for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant took a friendly loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him which was paid to her through four demand drafts all dated 10.02.2005 drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Ranchi. To repay this amount the defendant agreed to sale her landed property measuring about 4 kathas with house thereon for consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/-. An agreement to sale was thereafter executed by the parties on 15.05.2009. The plaintiff has further pleaded that he paid Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash on 15.05.2009, that is, when the agreement was executed, and thus he has paid Rs. 6,00,000/- to the defendant. However, when the defendant did not execute the sale deed within 10 months as stipulated in the agreement he issued a legal notice to her on 23.02.2010. In her written statement the defendant has pleaded that she has purchased 4 kathas land in the village 'Kadru, District 'Ranchi but no construction has been made thereon and, in fact, she has no house or quarter at Ranchi. After her marriage she is residing at Gaya in the house of her husband "Dr. Prasant Nandkuliar and her maiden name was Madhulika Narayan. In these facts the defendant has disputed service of notice upon her and her address disclosed by the plaintiff in the plaint. She has claimed that only after a notice was published in the daily newspaper she came to know about institution of a suit by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded by her that she and her sister-in-law namely, Dolly Nandkeoliyar who also owns 13 decimals land out of Plot No. 1939A situated at village "Baraghagra, District - Ranchi and who is married to brother of her husband, executed two separate agreements for sale of 4 kathas land each to Md. Shamim who ultimately could not make payment and consequently the aforesaid agreement to sale dated 02.08.2003 executed by her and the agreement to sale executed by her sister-in-law - Dolly Nandkeoliyar were cancelled and they executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Chitta Ranjan Prasad Verma resident of Mohalla - Shamir Takiya, District - Gaya. It was only after they received an Advocate's notice on 15.04.2009 she could know that the said Md. Shamim has executed an agreement for sale dated 13.01.2005 with respect to 4 kathas land belonging to her with Smt. Lata Devi who is wife of the plaintiff. The alleged payment made by the plaintiff has also been denied and disputed by the defendant.;