KIMTI BABBAR Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 134/2007 Allowed subject to just exceptions. CMM No.12 of 2007 and CM No.133/2007 Late Sh. Satpal Babbar had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.03.1984 executed by him with one Sh. Chand Narayan Datta in respect of property no. 30/23, East Patel Nagar, for a purported consideration of Rs 7.5 lakh. The suit was filed in the year 1987 and since then both the original vendor and vendee have passed away and are represented by their legal representatives.

(2.) Late Sh.Satpal Babbar pleaded an advance payment of Rs 5,100/- in cash on 10.03.1984 and Rs 25,000 through a cheque on 13.03.1984 against these aforesaid total considerations. The agreement as well as the payments have been disputed by the defendants. The matter has unfortunately been pending for the last twenty years before the trial Court and was at the stage of final arguments after recording of evidence of the parties.

(3.) The petitioners (LR s of the original plaintiff) were aggrieved by an order dated 03.05.2006 passed by the Trial Court in terms whereof their right to lead rebuttal evidence was closed and thus filed Civil Revision Petition No. 176- 81/2006. This revision petition was disposed of on 16.10.2006 noting that the rebuttal evidence was confined to the concerned officer from the Allahabad Bank, Paharganj Branch, New Delhi to be examined along with records of payment of cheque no.717728 dated 13.03.1984 from the current account of M/s S.P.Industries to the account of late Sh. Chand Narayan Datta. The second evidence sought to be summoned was of the officer of the Syndicate Bank , Patel Nagar along with the account details of Sh. Chand Narayan Datta's savings bank account. These were sought to be summoned to prove that the payments of advance as alleged had been made to late Sh. Chand Narayan Datta. The Order dated 16.10.2006 recorded that one last opportunity was being given by consent to the petitioners herein to summon these two witnesses despite the apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondents that the records were possibly not even available. Since the next date was fixed before the Trial Court as 15.11.2006, the petitioners were permitted to take summons to the said two witnesses for the date of hearing making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted on this account and the petitioners were burdened with costs of Rs 7,500/- for this opportunity granted.