PARTAP SINGH Vs. CHAND HOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is pending since 1982 and since the respondents though served did not put in appearance I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in the main appeal itself.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, he obtained an agreement of sale from the defendants and he was put in possession of the suit property and that defendants were trying to interfere with his possession. Petitioner who is plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 in Chief and he did not submit himself to cross-examine. Several opportunities have been given to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not present on 24.1.1980 then the matter was posted for his examination and to lead other evidence. The trial Court was constrained to dismiss the suit in default. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that last opportunity was given to the plaintiff on 24.1.1980 to lead his evidence but he did not examine himself on that date. Then the matter was adjourned and ultimately it was 24.4.1980. It has also been come out from the case that on 24.4.1980 he was not present. According to the learned counsel who appeared for the plaintiff in the trial Court the petitioner produced a medical certificate and that certificate was about 15 days prior to 24.4.1980. There is no evidence that the petitioner was ill on 24.4.1980. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala who dismissed the appeal on 29.10.1981 observing that the plaintiff did not give any satisfactory explanation for non-production of evidence and for his non-appearance and that the trial Court has rightly closed the evidence of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.

(3.) Further the claim of the petitioner is based on agreement of sale. It is settled law that an agreement of sale does not confirm any title as it has been held in Probodh Kumar Das and Ors. v. Dantmara Tea Co. Ltd. and Ors., A.I.R. 1940 Privy Council 1. It is not brought to my notice that during the last 17 years respondents had never taken any steps to get the agreement of sale in his favour to be specifically enforced. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot rely on the basis of his title. When the plaintiff himself is at fault and is not appearing on the date of adjournment and has not subjected himself to cross-examine, he has to blame himself. I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.