PREM CHAUDHARY Vs. TAKDIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions bearing CR No.2071 of 2017 titled as "Prem Chaudhary V/s Takdir Singh" at the instance of the plaintiff against the order of the lower Appellate Court, whereby the first application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of CivilProcedure, has been allowed in part and remaining three applications being similar in nature have been dismissed and other CR No.1458 of 2017 titled as "Takdir Singh V/s Prem Chaudhary" filed at the instance of the defendant against the same very order, whereby the first application for additional evidence in part has been allowed.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dtd. 31/8/1999 in respect of the suit land. The suit was filed on 28/3/2000 as the target date was 31/1/2000. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 10/4/2002. When the case was slated for defendant's evidence, an application was submitted by the defendant for examination of the signatures on the agreement to sell through an Expert, which was allowed and Expert submitted his report, wherein it was submitted that signatures of Takdir Singh/defendant/petitioner had been traced. The trial Court by relying upon the same report dismissed the suit. However, at the appellate Stage, the plaintiff submitted four application, first application pertained to examination of Handwriting Expert on the premise that the defendant wanted to amend written statement by explaining the use of blank papers having signatures to be traced papers, which was denied and the valuation report to establish that the rate agreed in the agreement to sell prevailing at the relevant stage and the other various prayers i.e. for bringing on record the letter of Municipal Committee, Jhajjar, report of metrological department, certain other documents with regard to the transfer of Dilbag Singh, who was in the Government job. As regards the fourth application, the plaintiff wanted to place on record the statement dtd. 10/3/2004 and cross-examination of 2006 in a Civil Suit No.352 of 2002 filed by Takdir Singh/defendant, challenging the proceedings allegedly suffered in favour of Dilbag Singh, husband of the plaintiff-Prem Chaudhary, which has been dismissed.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurav Kanojia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- plaintiff in CR-2071-2017 and for the respondent in CR No.1458 of 2017 submitted the lower Appellate Court though had granted the permission to examine expert by declining the other documents i.e. Collector's rate, M.C. Letter and metrological department report as well as the statements, but the same are essential and necessary for the adjudication of the lis, for, in the suit filed by Takdir Singh/defendant, he denied that there was a separation amongst the brothers in 1989, though in the suit for specific performance, there was a categoric admission. It was further contended that the plaintiff though had moved an application for examination of the Expert in the month of May 2002, but the report came only on 30/9/2002, when the trial Court had already decided the suit, therefore, due diligence was conspicuously wanting.