R C WAHI Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 02.03.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 196 of 1996 rejecting the request of the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to record evidence on all the issues framed in the suit and deciding to. record evidence only on the issue of limitation.

(2.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in Suit No. 196 of 1996. According to the averments in this revision petition, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance, cancellation, of sale deed and consequential relief of injunction. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:-

(3.) Issue Nos. 3 and 8 were treated as preliminary issues and thereafter the Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit was barred by time. The plaintiff filed an appeal RPA No. 140 of 1992 in the High Court and it was disposed of by the High Court on 23.01.1996. The High Court held that in order to determine the question as to when the limitation commenced to run in the facts and circumstances of the case and when the limitation to bring the suit for specific performance would expire, it would need some evidence. The Court took note of the fact that the original defendant No. 1 had stated in his written statement that he had not refused to perform the agreement. The Court opined that all that should be a matter of examination and cross-examination. The High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below and remanded the case back to the Trial Court "directing the Trial Court to record evidence on the issue of limitation". When the case was taken up by the Trial Court, the counsel for the plaintiff requested the Court to fix the case for evidence on all the issues. But the counsel for the defendant urged that the evidence should be limited to the question of limitation. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that after the remand of the case with the direction to record evidence, evidence should be recorded on all the issues. However, the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 02.03.1998 decided to record evidence only on the issue of limitation.