MAHESH SINGH CHAHAR Vs. NEELAM CHAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 26-6-2015 passed by 3rd Additional Civil Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge Class-1, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 2A/2013, thereby rejecting the application, filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1, 6,7 C.P.C.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract. It is his case that on 16-4-2010, late Chandel Singh Jahar had executed an agreement to sell a shop in favor of the petitioner. The said agreement to sell was got notarized. An amount of Rs. 2,50,000 was paid by way of advance, and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,50,000 was agreed to be paid in monthly installments of Rs. 20,000/- each, which was paid by the petitioner. The details of the cheques by which the remaining amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid, has been given in para 6 of the plaint. Jandel Singh Chahar died and the defendants informed that because of some difficulties, they would not close the bank account of Jandel Singh Chahar and since, the agreement to sell was executed by Jandel Singh Chahar, therefore, the plaintiff may continue to give the cheques in the name of Chandel Singh Chahar. It was further pleaded that now the intentions of the defendants have changed. Only an amount of Rs. 50,000 is outstanding, therefore, the petitioner had requested the respondents to accept the remaining amount and to execute the sale deed, but they have not done so, and accordingly, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments for want of knowledge. It was further pleaded that the agreement appears to be forged and Late Shri Jandel Singh Chahar was a simple person, and he used to rely on their brothers, therefore, it is possible that taking advantage of the simplicity of Late Jandel Singh, the petitioner might have obtained his signatures on the agreement to sell, and the payment of amount in instalments, also create doubt on the veracity of the agreement.