GERMANJIT @ JERMANJIT SINGH Vs. MALKIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by Shri J.S. Kang, learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the application filed by defendants before the trial Court and before the First Appellate Court for additional evidence was accepted. Briefly stated the present petitioners -plaintiffs before the trial Court filed suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 20.5.1984 alleged to be executed by Chanan Singh predecessor -in interest of defendants/appellants now respondents in respect of land measuring 90 kanals 7 marlas. The learned trial Court, after adjudicating the rights of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) THE defendants now respondents preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. In that appeal, defendants/respondents filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the CPC) that defendants are residents of USA. They inquired from their nephew Raghbir Singh and came to know that alleged agreement to sell stated to have been attested by one Harbhajan Singh, Lamberdar and Balbir Singh was the second witness, residents of village Chawinda Devi and Parma Nand was the deed writer. The said deed writer appeared as PW -1 and has stated that he was not maintaining any register but actually he was maintaining a register. The defendants now respondents have procured the said register, after the death of said deed writer. They moved an application in the trial Court to prove that Parma Nand was telling lie inasmuch as he was maintaining a register. Further, the respondents have procured documents regarding Lamberdari of village Chawinda Devi through RTI from the office of Collector for the year 1948 -49 to 1955 -1956 and till date. In which, it has been mentioned that there is no Lamberdar with the name of Harbhajan Singh appointed in village Chawinda Devi. Further, it is alleged that Balbir Singh son of Joginder Singh, who is stated to be an attesting witness of the agreement never appeared before the trial Court. In fact, some other Balbir Singh of village Rupowali Chogwan appeared as a witness and made deposition as Balbir Singh son of Joginder Singh, the age of said Balbir Singh was 50 years whereas actual age of Balbir Singh son of Joginder Singh resident of village Chawinda Devi is 75 years. So, the plaintiffs have tried to impersonate another person as Balbir Singh son of Joginder Singh. It is further pleaded that since they were residing in USA and as such they could not gather information about the said fact. It is further pleaded that 4 -5 days prior to the alleged agreement, Chaman Singh executed mortgage deed on which he signed as mortgagor whereas the agreement contains the thumb impression of Chaman Singh, which casts a serious doubt about the execution of the document. The said document is the result of fraud.

(3.) THE First Appellate Court after hearing both the parties accepted the application for additional evidence.