AJMER SINGH DHILLON Vs. RAMA RANI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula in Civil Appeal No.80 of 2011/Case No.2111 of 2013 dated 23.05.2011 whereby respondent No.1 was allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence led by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 01.07.1997 was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011. Operative part of the relief clause reads as under:-

(3.) During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the suit land was sold by the judgment debtor in favour of respondent No.2. Prayer for impleadment of respondent No.2 as party defendant in the suit was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula. Civil Revision No.1208 of 2011 was filed in the High Court, which was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2011. Petitioner was allowed to be impleaded as defendant being assignee by way of sale deed. It was observed that petitioner being the assignee has to watch his interest in the property particularly when the rights of the parties have not yet been settled between the plaintiff and the assignor. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if the assignee is allowed to be substituted in place of vendors. It was also observed that respondent No.2 has undertaken not to file any written statement, claim any further issues and would not lead any evidence, however, he would only defend his case on the basis of evidence already on the record. The suit was decreed on 31.02011.