PUNCHIP ASSOCIATES Vs. RAJDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the orders dated 27th February, 2007 and 25th April, 2007. The said orders have been passed in CS(OS) No. 2842/1995. At the time of framing of issues, the learned Single Judge noticed an admitted position that after lapse of five years of the lease deed dated 18th September, 1986, no fresh lease deed was executed. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that the controversy revolves only around the interpretation of the aforesaid admitted document. The said document being an admitted document, the learned Single Judge proceeded to frame four issues. It is also recorded by the learned Single Judge that no other issue was pressed by any of the parties and that all the aforesaid issues arise from interpretation of the said admitted document. In that context, it was ordered that no oral testimony was required to be recorded and the learned Single Judge passed order dated 27th February, 2007.

(2.) On perusal of the records, we also find that the learned counsel for the parties had agreed on 27th February, 2007 that they would file a short synopsis running into not more than three pages each in view of the aforesaid agreed position. The parties agreed not to lead oral evidence and the controversy and disputes could be decided on the basis of the interpretation of the lease deed dated 18th September, 1986. Therefore, to say that further issues arise or that the parties should be allowed to lead oral evidence, is an after thought. Similar prayer made by the appellant by filing a review application was also rejected on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid position and in view of the agreed and accepted position and the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Attempt by the appellant is to delay the proceedings. The appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.