LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-436

SATPAL SINGH Vs. CHUHAR SINGH

Decided On July 28, 2006
SATPAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
CHUHAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against order dated 19.4.1995 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased Chand Singh, had been declined and the application filed by Chuhar Singh was allowed and it was ordered that the appeal qua Chand Singh stands abated.

(2.) Mr. G.S. Punia, learned Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 by way of preliminary objection challenged the maintainability of the revision petition on the plea that since the order is appealable, therefore, no civil revision was competent. Faced with this situation, Shri M.L. Saggar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the appeal also lies to this Court and, therefore, this civil revision may be treated as an appeal against the impugned order. Office is directed to make necessary correction in this regard and register this civil revision as SAO. The facts leading to the present appeal are that Chuhar Singh had instituted a suit against Chand Singh and Sat Pal Singh for possession as owner of land measuring 2 Kanals 4 Marlas situated at village Kamalpur by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 22.5.1987 on receipt of balance sale consideration amounting to Rs.3,000/-. The claim was made for setting aside the sale deed dated 23.2.1988 executed by Chand Singh, defendant No. 1 in favour of Sat Pal Singh, defendant No. 2 now appellant herein. In alternative, it was prayed that earnest money paid by the plaintiff be recovered from Chand Singh.

(3.) The suit was contested and the stand taken by defendant No. 1 was that he had entered into an agreement dated 26.11.1986 with appellant-defendant No. 2 and had executed a sale deed in his favour on 23.2.1988 for sale of land measuring 10 Kanals 4 Marlas including the suit land. He denied the execution of agreement in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and also receipt of earnest money. Thus he disputed his liability to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.