BHAJANPAL SINGH Vs. MAHAVEER CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal under Section 96 CPC read with O. 21 R.97 and O.21 R.100 and 103 CPC has been filed against the order dated 12.9.2008 passed Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Beawar in Civil Misc. Appl. No. 106/2007 whereby application filed by the appellant under O.21 R.97 CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by Mahaveer Chand on the ground that an agreement to sell was executed between Mahaveer Chand and Bhupendra on 9.12.2003 on which a decree was passed in favour of Mahaveer Chand and against Bhupendra, the objections have been filed by the present appellant on the ground that present appellant has purchased the property on the strength of agreement to sell which has been executed prior to agreement executed between decree holder and judgment debtor. On 2.12.2003, agreement to sell was executed between judgment debtor and Satvendra and thereafter power of attorney was executed in favour of Satvender Singh and Satvender Singh has executed sale deed in his favour on 30.3.2005, hence he has independent title from the judgment debtor and he cannot be dispossessed under the decree. His further contention is that court below has not framed issues or gave any chance to the parties to lead evidence even he has not given chance to submit sale deed or power of attorney.

(3.) THE first contention of the present appellant is that no opportunity of leading evidence has been allowed to him and no opportunity of producing sale deed or power of attorney has been given to him and reliance has been placed on Ashan Devi & Anr. Vs. Phulwasi Devi & ors., : (2003) 12 SCC 219 where the Apex Court has held that if the executing court has recorded the evidence it was within his jurisdiction.