KASHI RAM Vs. MALLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been submitted by the defendant in a suit for specific performance assailing the order dated 21.09.2004 (Annex.5) passed by the learned trial court refusing his applications under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 and under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

(2.) Brief relevant facts are that the petitioner is defending a suit filed by the respondent No.1 seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement for sale of agricultural land situated at Chak 5 MLD(A) in Murraba Nos.48/56 and 38/64 measuring about 50 bighas. The existence and validity of the agreement is seriously in question. The plaintiff asserts existence of the agreement and his right to have the same specifically performed; whereas the defendant-petitioner maintains the agreement to be a fabricated document and being unenforceable in law. On 23.07.2004, the trial court framed as many as nine issues on the questions involved in the suit which read as under:- A perusal of record shows that after framing of issues, the matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence on 11.08.2004. On this date, the plaintiff moved an application for summoning of the original agreement dated 13.01.1984. The learned trial court passed an order requisitioning the said document from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Anoopgarh. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 21.08.2004 another application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC and directions were issued to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Anoopgarh to send the original agreement alongwith FSL report. On these dates of 11.08.2004 and 21.08.2004 though several witnesses of the plaintiff were present but none of them was examined.

(3.) On the next date of hearing i.e. 03.09.2004, the documents required by the court were received but the defendant-petitioner moved the applications aforesaid under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC seeking permission to amend the written statement and to produce further documents. The plaintiff also moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. On that date, learned trial court received copy of an order dated 09.08.2004 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1154/2004 wherein this Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the property in dispute and directed the trial court to decide the matter within six months. The learned trial court, therefore, ordered that regular proceedings be taken in the suit curbing against long adjournments.