LAWS(P&H)-2011-10-157

SMT. MALKIAT KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

Decided On October 03, 2011
Smt. Malkiat Kaur Appellant
V/S
Mohinder Singh And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No.2-petitioner has filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial court whereby her prayer for leading additional evidence had been declined.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.4.2005 executed by respondent No.2 in his favour, wherein he had impleaded the petitioner as defendant No.2 as the land was purchased by her on 16.12.2005 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.8.2003. The sale deed dated 16.12.2005 has also been challenged on the ground that the same has been executed in order to defeat the right of the plaintiff on the basis of agreement to sell dated 6.4.2005. Respondent No.2 and the petitioner filed their respective written statements. Respondent No.2 in his written statement pleaded that respondent No.1 was doing the business of money lending and in the year 2002 he approached respondent No.1 for getting the land for domestic needs when he advanced a loan of Rs. 30,000.00 on interest of 3% per month and repaid the said loan. He further pleaded that the property worth Rs. 7-8 lacs cannot be sold for a meager amount of Rs. 75,000.00. The petitioner-defendant No.2 pleaded that respondent No.2 entered into an agreement to sell with her husband on 19.8.2003 and received Rs. 1,50,000.00 as an earnest money and the date was fixed as 18.2.2005 for execution of the sale deed. On 4.2.2005, the husband of defendant No.2-petitioner issued a notice to respondent No.2 for execution of the sale deed and the date for execution of sale deed was mutually extended to 17.6.2005 and thereafter the date was extended upto 16.12.2005 on which date, the sale deed was executed. Respondent No.1 filed replication to the written statements filed by petitioner and respondent No.2. Thereafter the case was adjourned for evidence. On 31.8.2010, the petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence. The trial court vide order dated 5.2.2011 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.