HARI CHAND Vs. ANOOP KRISHAN SOOD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the present petition directs challenge against order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to examine the witnesses in rebuttal has been dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession and interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff on four shops measuring 75.55 square yards bearing property No.B-IV-S- 17/1120 situated in Mohalla Sudan, Ludhiana and further restraining the defendants from causing any type of damage to the roof and walls of the four shops and not to interfere in the minor repair work of the roof and walls of the said shops, on the premise that Mahant Piara Nand let out shop No.1 and 2 to the plaintiff vide rent note dated 27.10.1978 and handed over its possession to the petitioner. On 14.05.2003, the said Mahant agreed to sell shops No.1 to 4 to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 8,000.00 per square yard by way of agreement to sell dated 14.05.2003. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 towards earnest money was paid to the Mahant at the time of agreement dated 14.05.2003 and the sale deed was agreed to be executed upto 30.04.2004 on receipt of balance sale price. However, on 20.04.2004 another sum of Rs. 1,15,000.00 was received by the Mahant from the plaintiff and sale deed was agreed to be executed up to 30.12.2004. On 20.12.2004, another amount of Rs. 85,000.00 was received by the Mahant and the date for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 30.06.2005. On 14.06.2005, Mahant executed a fresh agreement in favour of the plaintiff by receiving an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 and acknowledged receipt of total amount of Rs. 3,50,000.00 and agreed to execute the sale deed upto 25.01.2006 but the date was again mutually extended upto 25.06.2006. Another agreement was executed and eventually the date for execution of the sale deed was lastly extended up to 02.12.2007 but the Mahant failed to execute sale deed of the property in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues on 19.11.2013, reproduced in para 5 of the grounds of revision. It is further submitted that as the defendants in the written statement have challenged competency of Mahant to create tenancy or execute agreement to sell with the plea that the suit property is the ownership of Panchayat Mohalla Sudan, registered in the name of Dharamshala Baba Mala and they have adduced evidence in order to discharge the onus of issues with regard to suit being not maintainable and the plaintiff having no locus standi to file the suit, a serious prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner in case he is not permitted to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendant.