HAKIM SINGH Vs. ISHWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Gurgaon vide which the application filed by the plaintiff for permission to lead evidence in rebuttal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell. Plaintiff alleged that defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein was alleged owner in possession of residential plot No. 2064 Sector 46, Urban Estate, Gurgaon measuring 100 sq. yards i.e. 4 Marlas on the basis of allotment letter dated 29.05.1996 issued by defendant No. 2 for consideration of Rs. 1,06,920/-. Defendant No. 1 had already paid the entire sale consideration to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 had already executed a conveyance deed in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the above said plot to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 6,22,500/- i.e. @ Rs. 6225/- per sq. yards. An agreement to sell dated 18.12.2003 was executed after receiving Rs. 25,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff. All the terms and conditions of sale of the plot were settled in the said agreement to sell. Defendant No. 1 was in need of more amount, therefore, defendant No. 1 received another sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.12.2003 as further part payment towards execution of the transaction and he executed a receipt admitting the total receipt of Rs. 1 lakhs from the plaintiff. The date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 15.02.2004 as per agreement to sell dated 18.12.2003.

(3.) In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 18.12.2003, defendant No. 1 moved an application dated 03.02.2004 to defendant No. 2 for transfer of the said plot. Date was given as 21.02.2004 by defendant No. 2. Thereafter defendant No. 2 permitted the transfer of plot in favour of the plaintiff vide memo No. 5675 dated 19.05.2004 subject to fulfilling certain conditions by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 did not fulfil the conditions as formulated by defendant No. 2 on the ground that the last date as per agreement to sell has already expired. The delay was not attributable to the plaintiff. With this background ultimately the suit came to be filed after pleading subsequent details of facts between the parties.