GULZAR SINGH Vs. LAKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Gulzar Singh (since deceased) through legal representative (L.R.) Baljit Kaur has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') assailing order dated 28.03.1998 passed by the trial court dismissing application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recalling plaintiff Lakhwinder Singh PW4 and Balbir Singh PW3 for further cross -examination with reference to alleged agreement to sell dated 11.08.1993 executed by one Satwant Singh in favour of plaintiff -respondent Lakhwinder Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the case file.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff -respondent by making statement in the trial court, allowed the photostat copy of the said agreement dated 11.08.1993 to be exhibited as Ex. D2 in evidence. Consequently, in view thereof, there was no necessity of recalling the aforesaid witnesses for their further cross -examination regarding the said agreement. On the other hand, the plaintiff has already admitted in his cross -examination that such an agreement had been executed, although the plaintiff was not confronted with the said agreement at that stage. However, since copy of the agreement has been exhibited in evidence as per statement made by counsel for the plaintiff, the application filed by petitioner for recalling the aforesaid two witnesses for further cross -examination regarding the said agreement has been rendered infructuous and redundant. Even otherwise, it may be added that respondent -plaintiff has since died and, therefore, the question of recalling him for further cross -examination does not arise. Prima -facie it also appears that alleged agreement dated 11.08.1993 between respondent -plaintiff and one Satwant Singh is not relevant in the instant suit which has been filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.09.1993 allegedly executed by defendant Gulzar Singh.

(3.) HOWEVER nothing observed here -in -before shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit. Since the suit has already been delayed due to interim stay by this court, the trial court is directed to decide the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.