BHAGWAN SINGH SANDHU Vs. LAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 4.1.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court.

(2.) The proceedings arise out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and Gurbachan Singh and Karamjit Kaur Sandhu (respondents No. 2 and 3). The petitioner, who has been arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the suit, had in fact purchased the property in question from defendant No. 1-respondent No. 2 vide sale deed dated 16.2.2004, registered on 17.2.2004. The aforesaid sale deed is also under challenge in the suit. After defendant No. 1 in the suit closed his evidence, the petitioner was afforded opportunity to lead evidence. However, on failure of the petitioner to conclude the same, it was closed by order of the court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evidence of the petitioner started on 30.9.2011, on which date though summoned record was available in the court including the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, which is under challenge in the suit, however, Lal Deen, Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, presently posted in Sub Divisional Magistrate's Office, though had been served but was not present to prove the same. The case was adjourned to 25.10.2011. On the next date of hearing, neither the witnesses, who appeared earlier and bound down nor any other witness were present. The case was adjourned to 17.11.2011, when one of the witnesses present who had produced the record was examined. The affidavit of the examination-in-chief of the petitioner was also taken on record. His cross-examination was deferred on the request of learned counsel for defendant No. 1. Two witnesses, namely, Raj Kumar and Anoop Kumar were also present, but were not examined and the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for defendant No. 1. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 15.12.2011, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 4.1.2012, on which date evidence of the petitioner was closed. In fact, the petitioner was not at fault as the witnesses, who had been bound down by the court, had not appeared and similarly the official witnesses, who had been summoned and served, had also not appeared in the court. He submitted that it is only the crossexamination of the petitioner, which is left, besides statements of the official witnesses who have to prove the record. The petitioner deserves to be granted reasonable opportunity therefor. The trial is not being delayed on account of any fault of the petitioner.