Iqbal Singh vs Ramesh Kumar on 6 November, 2009

RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M)            1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH

                                CM No. 10419-C of 2009 and
                                RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M)

                                Date of Decision: November 06 , 2009


Iqbal Singh                                        ...... Appellant

      Versus

Ramesh Kumar                                              ...... Respondent


Coram:        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:      Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate
              for the appellant.
                     ****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ajay Tewari, J.

CM No. 10419-C of 2009

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is

allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number.

With the consent of learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for

hearing.

RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M)

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific

performance of an agreement to sell dated 16.6.99 executed by the appellant

in respect of his house. The following questions have been proposed:-

i) Whether the learned trial court and then learned First
Appellate Court has not erred in not allowing the appellant
RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) 2

another opportunity to lead evidence, particularly when the
judgment was not pronounced immediately after closure of
evidence?

ii) Whether the documentary evidence by way of affidavits and
the report of the valuer could be ignored by the learned trial
court and the learned First Appellate Court,when the matter
was not finally decided. Just 5 effective dates were given to
the defendant-as explained in forthcoming paras?

iii)Whether when after by order closure of evidence of the
defendant on 25.2.2004 an application for recalling the order
was filed on 16.3.2004 and then the case was adjourned for
8.3.2004,16.3.2004, it was not just and fair in the interest of
justice to let the defendant to tender the affidavits and
documents in evidence, thus the learned courts below have
failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them?

iv)Whether the learned Courts below have not mis appreciated
and ignored the material aspects of evidence, thus the
judgments/findings are not vitiated,thus liable to beset
aside?

v) Whether the plaintiff who even did not know the identity etc.
Of the house, could be held to have entered into alleged
deal?

It would be seen that all the questions relate to the issue of

closure of evidence of the defendant. Learned counsel has not been able to

convince me that the issue of closure of evidence was illegally decided. It is

not disputed that numerous opportunities were granted to the appellant to

lead his evidence. Once questions relating to the closure of evidence viz.

questions No. (i) and (iii) are held against him, questions No.(ii), (iv) and

(v) which are pure questions of fact would also have to be necessarily held

against him.

In the circumstance this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) 3

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.

Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

November 06 , 2009
sunita