JAGRAJ SINGH Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGRAJ Singh son of Chuhar Singh, resident of village Pohrke, Tehsil and District Sirsa, has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate order/direction for setting aside the impugned judgment (Annexure 4) and decree (Annexure p5) dated 2. 4. 1996 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa, and judgment (Annexure P2) and decree (Annexure P3) dated 31. 5. 1993 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa, as, according to the petitioner, the same are without jurisdiction and against the expressed statutory provisions as contained under Order 2 Rule 2, C. P. C. , and that the said annexures have been passed in an arbitrary, wrong and illegal manner and it amounts to abuse of the process of law.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Baljit Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement on 22. 8. 1989 against Chuhar Singh, father of the present petitioner, and claimed a decree for possession on the basis of agreement of sale dated 16. 1. 1989 and the case set up by Baljit Singh was that Chuhar Singh agreed to sell the suit land for a sum of Rs. 40,375/- and he received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by way of earnest money. The remaining sale consideration was to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed and the date of registration of the sale deed was fixed to be 4. 5. 1989. The vendor did not honour the terms of the agreement dated 16. 1. 1989 in spite of the fact that the vendee was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit was contested by the vendor Chuhar Singh on various pleas and ultimately after a full length trial, the suit for possession by way of specific performance was decreed by the trial Court on 31. 5. 1993 vide Annexures P2 and P3. The defendant-Chuhar Singh went up in appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide Annexures P4 and P5 dated 2. 4. 1996.

(3.) THE grouse of the present petitioner is that the suit for possession by way of specific performance was barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2, C. P. C. , as the vendee failed to claim that relief in the suit for injunction filed by him on 27. 4. 1989 and, consequently, Annexures P2 and P3 passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa, and Annexures P4 and P5 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sirsa, are nullity in the eyes of law.