KULJIT SINGH Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside orders dated 3.5.2016 and 17.5.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No. 4154 of 2015 titled as "Kuljit Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh".

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession of plot/built up house by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.12004 and also for directing the respondent to get executed and registered the sale deed of the land in dispute or in alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs. Initially civil suit No. 107 dated 15.2005 was filed by the petitioner, in which, the respondent was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 30.7.2005 as he failed to appear. Thereafter the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana and execution application was also filed. Respondent moved an application dated 11.6.2012 for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 15.4.2011, which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 25.2015 and the case was fixed for filing written statement. Written statement to the civil suit was filed on 27.5.2015. The evidence of the petitioner was closed on 1.12015 and the evidence of the respondent was closed on 20.2016. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application dated 25.2016 for permission to summon Patwari Halqa as in the jamabandi name of Gurmeet Singh was wrongly entered as Gurpreet Singh. Said application was dismissed vide order dated 3.5.2016. Thereafter another application dated 6.5.2016 was moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence by summoning Patwari Halqa for proving the correctness of jamabandi on the Court file. Said application was also dismissed vide order dated 17.5.2016. Orders dated 3.5.2016 and 17.5.2016 are subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court has not appreciated the case in the right perspective and has not interpreted the law involved in the case. The evidence of the petitioner was closed on 1.12.2015. The petitioner brought on record the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 by way of evidence, which was issued by Charanjit Singh, Patwari in the name of Gurpreet Singh. The evidence of the respondent was closed on 20.2.2016. As per copy of jamabandi prepared on 22.2016, Gurpreet Singh was recorded and not Gurmeet Singh. The application for summoning Patwari Halqa was moved in rebuttal evidence but the same was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner has already availed ten effective opportunities to lead his evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner wanted to summon Patwari Halqa along with original record relating to the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 of the concerned village to prove on record in whose name the jamabandi pertains. Learned counsel also submits that the summoning of concerned Patwari Halqa along with all original record to prove the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 is necessary as in the revenue entry the name of Gurpreet Singh was recorded instead of Gurmeet Singh. It is also the argument of learned counsel that the said evidence was not in possession of the petitioner and same could not be produced in spite of all diligence on his part. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Jai Narain Vs. Satya Narain and others 2007 (4) Law Herald 3117 and Ranjit Singh Vs. Mehfil Restaurant 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 768 in support of his contentions.