(1.) DECREE -holder Raj Kumar Khanna, respondent in this revision petition (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) filed a suit against Chatter Bhuj Gupta petitioner defendant-JD (hereinafter referred to as J. D.) for specific performance of an alleged agreement entered between the parties. Shri Chatter Bhuj Gupta as per pleadings of the parties remained out of India in connection with his export business. At the time of filing of suit, Chatter Bhuj Gupta was stated to be living in United States of America. In the suit he was purportedly represented by his general power of attorney Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh general power of attorney suffered a consent decree and sale deed was executed in pursuance to the said decree by way of specific performance of the said contract.
(2.) CHATTER Bhuj Gupta judgment-debtor filed an application under order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the decree on the allegation that he had never appointed Mohinder Singh as his general power of attorney to act on his behalf. On this application, trial Court framed the following issues :
(3.) DECREE holder being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court filed C. R. No. 3666 of 1993 with the submission that onus to prove Issue No. 1 was upon the decree holder and if he did not lead any evidence in the affirmative then the JD could not be permitted to lead evidence in reply. This contention of the decree holder was not accepted. Revision petition was dismissed and it was held that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, judgment-debtor had rightly been allowed to lead evidence. If the JD was not allowed to lead evidence then it would have been impossible for him to prove his case. While the revision petition was being dismissed Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate, who had appeared for the decree holder in that revision petition made a prayer that the decree holder be also permitted to lead evidence after the JD has led his evidence to which counsel appearing on behalf of the JD did not object. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed with the modification that decree-holder petitioner would also be allowed to lead evidence on issue No. 1 after the JD led his evidence.