RAMPHAL AND ANOTHER Vs. SANTOSH BHAGANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of three revision petitions. Civil Revision No.264 of 2016 at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs is against the order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-8) whereby the application seeking police help for implementation of the order dated 2.9.2015 (Annexure P-4) has been dismissed. C.R. No.958 of 2018 at the instance of the petitioner-defendant No.1, is against the order dated 2.9.2015 (Annexure P-6) and 21.12.2017 (Annexure P-16) whereby the interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been allowed and upheld by the lower Appellate Court. C.R. No.854 of 2016 at the instance of the petitioner-defendant No.1 has been preferred against the order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-10) whereby the application dated 13.10.2015 seeking amendment of the written statement by adding certain paragraphs on account of occurrence of subsequent event has been dismissed. The outcome of all the three revision petitions hinges upon the decision of C.R. No.264 of 2016, therefore, the facts are enumerated from the same.

(2.) The petitioners-plaintiffs have approached this Court by challenging the order dated 23.12.2015 on the ground that the petitionersplaintiffs on 09.12.2011 instituted the suit for symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.11.2010 in respect of house bearing No.1111 measuring 160 sq. yards situated at Urban Estate II, Hisar (hereinafter called the suit property) by directing the defendant No.1 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 namely Virender Kumar, petitioner No.2 herein with consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking restraint order against defendant No.1 from forcible interference and dispossession, much less, alienation of the property. Along with the aforementioned suit, an interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. It was averred that the agreement to sell was for a sum of Rs. 25 lacs and the entire sale consideration in the presence of witnesses had been paid to the defendant No.1. It is in that background, the possession was handed over. In July, 2011, plaintiff No.1 requested defendant No.1 to register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 but the same was not executed. Plaintiff No.2 in consultation with defendant No.1 fixed the date for execution and registration of the sale deed as 21.11.2011 and in order to facilitate the registration of the sale deed purchased stamp paper of Rs. 1,95,300/- and also deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as registration fee in the treasury and the sale deed was also drafted at the instructions of defendant No.1 but defendant No.1 did not appear before the Sub Registrar and slipped away, leaving the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 in lurch. The plaintiff No.1 continued in possession of the property and thereafter he assigned his right under the agreement in favour of plaintiff No.2 in June, 2011. The electricity charges were also being paid by plaintiff No.2, much less, the water and sewerage charges. An interim prayer was also made for restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the property in dispute or dis-possessing the plaintiff No.2 from the house till final order. Mr. Ajay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that defendant No.1 is very clever and cunning lady. In order to wriggle out from the agreement, she involved the petitioners in a criminal case and got registered false FIR bearing No.803 dated 9.12.2011 under Sections 365/420/448/506/120B IPC registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar by hiding her husband Virender Singh.

(3.) The police investigated the matter and found the complaint to be false and recommended cancellation of the same. A case of cheating under Sections 420/406 IPC was also registered against defendant No.1 vide FIR bearing No.42 dated 17.1.2012. Even the anticipatory bail filed by her was also dismissed by the Sessions Court, though this Court had granted the bail and facing trial. The defendant No.1 in utter disregard of the stay order dated 2.09.2015 forcibly occupied the house after breaking open its lock on 10.10.2015. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken owing to the fact that the matter was sub judice before this Court. Since the defendant had already admitted the possession of the petitioners, an application dated 13.11.2015 (Annexure P-5) for implementation of the order dated 2.9.2015 by providing police help was submitted before the trial Court. The aforementioned application was contested by filing reply (Annexure P-6) wherein it was stated that the possession of the house was not taken forcibly but was handed over by the HUDA authorities by coining a story that since the HUDA officials had initiated the resumption proceedings and when the suit property was resumed, the defendant No.1 filed an appeal, deposited the penalty and got possession back from HUDA, which fact has been admitted in the information received under the Right to Information Act that the resumption order was cancelled and the possession of the house in question was resumed. The aforementioned application has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that an application dated 13.10.2015 had been submitted by the defendant No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement, by incorporating paragraph 8-A in the written statement, wherein subsequent event of handing over the possession of the house by the HUDA authorities, was sought to be incorporated.