MOHAN LAL Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the ground that the defendant, who is owner of house measuring 23 square yards bearing property No. B-XV11-2005, Abdullapur Basti, Ludhiana, had agreed to sell 1/2 share of the said property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 2 lacs. by executing an agreement to sell dated 25.1.2002. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had received Rs. 90,000/- towards earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 25.12.2002 but possession of one room was delivered to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant delayed the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff remained present before the office of the Sub Registrar on 26.12.2002 but the defendant did not turn up. Since the defendant failed to execute the sale deed inspite of notice served by the plaintiff and started threatening to dispossess him illegally, therefore, the present suit was filed for specific performance seeking permanent injunction as well.

(2.) IN the written statement, it was alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. It was alleged that he took loan of Rs. 49,200/- against which the plaintiff had got executed an agreement dated 15.11.2000 for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- including interest for one year. It was further alleged that the plaintiff received a blank cheque from the defendant on 15.11.2000 and the plaintiff got the time extended vide agreement dated 25.1.2002. It was further averred that defendant was liable to pay Rs. 60,000/- along-with interest.

(3.) SINCE the plaintiff availed sufficient opportunity to conclude his evidence but failed to produce the same. Learned counsel for the plaintiff made a statement in the trial Court on 04.5.2006 requesting for one adjournment to conclude his evidence. The adjournment was granted for 18.7.2006. But on that date, no witness of the plaintiff was present and the case was adjourned to 2.8.2006. Again on 2.8.2006, the plaintiff failed to produce even a single witness and as such, his evidence was closed by order of the Court.