HARDEV KAUR Vs. SURINDER KAUR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge -I, Ropar dated 19.12.2007 whereby judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.) Ropar dated 5.10.2005 has been upheld and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for the permanent injunction seeking to restrain Surinder Kaur and Ranjit Singh (defendant No. 1 and 2 respectively) from forcibly and illegally interfering into her peaceful possession over the house (suit property) marked as 'ABCD' comprising of rooms, bath room and kitchen etc. bounded as under:

(3.) THE plaintiff examined Kartar Singh, Numberdar as PW1, Sadhu Singh as PW2 and plaintiff Hardev Kaur herself appeared as PW3. On the other hand, the defendant examined defendant No. 1 Surinder Kaur as DW2. The learned trial Court while dealing with issues No. 1 to 3 together, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove agreement dated 10.11.1997; no site plan of the suit property has been proved on the record; no exact location of the property has been mentioned. The plaintiff has not been able to prove the possession from the factum of purchase from Gurbax Singh vide agreement dated 10.11.1997 and as such, she was not held entitled to decree for permanent injunction. In the appeal, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to examine deed writer to prove the agreement. It was alleged that the plaintiff had filed an application before the Court below but the same was not decided. The first Appellate Court has found that the issues were framed on 12.1.2001 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 21.2.2005 by order of the Court as the plaintiff had failed to complete her evidence. It has also found that the plaintiff did not file any revision against the order of closure of evidence by the order of Court. Thus, it was held by the First Appellate Court that since the plaintiff has failed to complete her evidence within a span of 4 years and has not even challenged the order of closure of evidence, it would amount to review of the order dated 21.2.2005. Moreover, the said evidence was very much within the knowledge of the plaintiff as her entire evidence was based upon the agreement dated 10.11.1997.