VARDHMAN TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. GURDYAL SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.8.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') under Sec. 63/65 of the Indian Evidence Act ( for short 'Act'), praying therein for permission to lead secondary evidence to prove the contents of agreement dated 25.8.1994, came to be dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set-aside the impugned order, referred hereinabove, and allow his application filed under Sec. 63-65 of the Act.

(2.) Necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of Specific Performance of Agreement and for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants'), averring therein that predecessor-in-interest of the defendants namely,Smt. Dropti widow of Sh. Thehar son of Sh. Sadhu, had entered into an agreements of sale dated 26.2.1994 and 25.8.1994. As per the plaintiff, defendants vide agreement to sell dated 25.8.1994 had received full and final payment and they after having received the entire payment, delivered the possession of the suit property at the spot. Since, defendants No.1 to 3 inherited the property, which is subject matter of the agreements, referred hereinabvoe, inheritance of mutation was sanctioned in the name of defendants No. 1 to 3. Plaintiff issued notices to the defendants to perform their part of agreement, but since they failed to execute the sale deed of their share in favour of the plaintiff despite there being agreements to sell executed by the their predecessor-in-interest, plaintiff instituted the suit, as detailed hereinabove, against the defendants.

(3.) Defendants by way of written statement specifically denied the factum, if any, with regard to execution of agreements to sell dated 26.2.1994 and 25.8.1994 by their predecessor-in-interest. Defendants also denied that their predecessor-in-interest received money, if any, in terms of the agreements to sell alleged to have been entered by their predecessor-in-interest with the plaintiff.