PREM CHAND Vs. SATLUJ CONSTRUCTION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for possession by way of specific performance of property based on a sale agreement. It is his say that the entire sale consideration has passed and he has been handed over physical possession of the suit property by the vendor but who has backed out of the deal and has not come forward to execute the sale deed. The suit was been filed in 2009 and issues were framed in September 2010. The petitioner has produced only one witness in support of his case so far and has gathered as many as 29 adjournments along the way, many of which were last opportunities and out of which past sum total as many as 15 of them were effective dates of hearing when witnesses ought to have been in attendance for recording of their evidence but failed to appear. To take stock of the situation; if under a sale agreement plaintiff admits possession passed with agreement to sell then the sale agreement will not turn into evidence till stamp duty is paid though the suit may be maintainable but the document would not be looked into except for collateral purposes.

(2.) If this is the position then the learned trial Court committed no error in closing the evidence of the plaintiff after assessing the conduct of the plantiff in prolonging the proceedings he himself initiated looking for specific relief and spread the case thin over 25 adjournments. I have already explained in Civil Revision No.1556 of 2014 titled Bharat Rajput vs Amrik Singh Aulakh and others decided on 03rd March, 2014 while examining the question of grant of last opportunities and observed that they cannot go on endlessly to which I would now add without ultimately bringing the Court itself to disrepute in granting endless accommodation. If in a suit for specific performance of property brought under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a plaintiff who does not show due diligence in prosecuting his case he can hardly expect any sympathy from the Court substantially reducing the market value of the property of the vendor if left free to deal with. These are well known tricks played by property dealers to paralyse real estate for speculative and devious ends though the plaintiff may or may not be one such. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground warranting interference in this matter in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and would dismiss the petition.