IMPERIAL PROPERTIES PVT LTD Vs. SURJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Imperial Properties Pvt. Ltd., has filed this appeal against judgment and decree dated 4.10.2004 whereby the Addl. District Judge has dismissed the suit of the appellant seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell that it claimed to have entered into with Smt. Surjo, wife of Shri Kudia, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said suit. In this appeal, the appellant has also impugned the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the evidence of the appellant had been closed. After some arguments, parties agreed that the impugned order dated 28.9.2004, closing the evidence of the plaintiff in the suit, as well as the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2004 be set aside and the case be remanded for trial from the stage at which it was left, and that the plaintiff in suit, who happens to be the appellant before us, be given fresh opportunity for leading evidence. The respondents were agreeable to this, provided a direction be issued to the Trial Court to conclude the case within 3-4 months.

(2.) The statement of the Director and Principal Officer of the appellant, Smt. Anjali Sehgal, undertaking to lead and to conclude evidence of the appellant within two hearings without any delay, and where, no more than three witnesses would be examined by the appellant, was recorded by us in Court on 12.9.2007. She has also undertaken to lead evidence of any official witness from the Post Office and the Office of the Sub Registrar that may be required, at her own responsibility.

(3.) On 19.9.2007, oath was administered to Smt. Surjo, respondent No.1, who is also defendant No.1 before the Trial Court, for recording her statement. However, being hard of hearing and due to old-age, she was unable to make a statement. Under the circumstances, we felt that it would be appropriate to record the statement of her advocate, Mr. Sunil Kumar Chauhan, on her behalf. The statement of the advocate was, therefore, recorded to the effect that he had discussed the matter with Smt. Surjo and her son, Hoshiar Singh, who looks after her affairs, and after discussions, had been authorised to state that respondent No.1 has no objection to the matter being remanded to the Trial Court and the appellant being afforded the opportunity to lead evidence on such terms and conditions as the Court deemed fit. He also undertook to file an affidavit of respondent No.1, Smt. Surjo, in this regard after personally satisfying himself that the contents of the said affidavit were properly explained to Smt. Surjo and that she understood the same. Similarly, the statement of Shri Vinod Aggarwal, who is the authorised representative and General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.3, stating that he had no objection to the appellant being permitted to lead evidence in the Trial Court and to the case being remanded to the Trial Court, was also recorded by us on 19.9.2007.