MULKH RAJ MISHAL Vs. HARDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision petition, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the trial Court's order dtd. 11/4/2014.

(2.) After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, this Court is of the view that the matter is required to be remitted back to the trial Court with a request to cull out the issues and permit the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective allegations and counter allegations. For this purpose, a brief narration of relevant facts is necessary.

(3.) The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, which was decreed ex parte on 28/7/2004. In the execution petition, the sale deed was executed by the Court in favour of the petitioner on 17/1/2006. An application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed on 28/7/2004 was filed by the respondent on 30/4/2007. The petitioner appointed Sh. Balwinder Singh as his registered power of attorney on 5/7/2007. The plaintiff engaged Sh. Rajnish Garg, Advocate, to contest the petition filed for setting aside ex parte decree. Reply was filed to contest the application. The proceedings remained pending upto 2013. On 7/9/2013, Sh. Balwinder Singh changed his previous counsel and engaged Sh. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner. On 13/9/2013, Sh. Balwinder Singh suffered a statement to the effect that the ex parte judgment and decree be set aside, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner be annulled and the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance be dismissed.