Vikram Singh (Deceased) Through ... vs Hardwari (Now Deceased) Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 15947 P&H

            CR No. 3360 of 2019                               -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                              CR No. 3360 of 2019 (O&M)
                              Date of decision : December 6th, 2022
                             ...

    Vikram Singh (Deceased) through Legal/natural heirs
                                        ................Petitioners

                              vs.

    Hardwari (Now deceased) through his LRs and others
                                        .................Respondents


    Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan



    Present: None for the petitioners

             Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 1(viii)

             Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2

             Ms. Nidhika, Advocate for
             Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate for respondent No.3.
                             ...

    H. S. Madaan, J.

1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that, plaintiff Vikram

Singh, since dead, now represented by his Legal Representatives, had

filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated

6.1.2005, against defendants Hardwari and others. On notice,

defendants put in appearance. Defendant No.1 in the written

statement filed by him had admitted the execution of agreement to

sell dated 6.1.2005 and having received a sum of Rs.9 lacs as earnest

money from the plaintiff on that day, but come up with the plea that

there was cutting in the agreement to sell, in as much as, the date of

execution of the sale deed was fixed as 5.5.2005 and not 5.8.2005.

1 of 4

2. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed:-

i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for

specific performance with consequential relief

of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the

present form? OPD

iii)Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file

the present suit ? OPD

iv)Whether the plaintiff are estopped from filing

the present suit by their own acts and conduct?

OPD

v) Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

vi)Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and

non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

vii)Whether the suit is not properly valued for the

purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

viii)Relief.

3. Since defendant No.1 had executed sale deeds in favour

of defendants No. 2 and 3 during pendency of the suit, such

defendants had been brought on record. Defendant No.1 absented

from the proceedings of the suit and was proceeded against ex parte

on 19.1.2016, whereas defendants No.2 and 3 continued contesting

the suit. The plaintiff concluded his evidence and thereafter the case

was fixed for evidence of defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendants No. 2

2 of 4

and 3, to show that there was cutting in the date, examined a few

witnesses including a document expert. The plaintiff had filed an

application to examine document expert in rebuttal, to rebut the

evidence of document expert examined by defendants No. 2 and 3.

However, that application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order

dated 26.4.2019, leaving the legal representatives of plaintiff -

Vikram Singh aggrieved and they have brought the present revision

petition, praying that the order under revision be set aside and

application filed by them for permission to examine the document

expert, be allowed.

4. Notice of the revision petition was given to the

respondents, who had put in appearance through counsel.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, since

learned counsel for the petitioner has not put in appearance, although

the case was adjourned for final arguments in his presence. On

account of stay order being operating, the proceedings in the trial

court are held up, therefore, the revision petition is being decided

after hearing learned counsel for the respondents and going through

the record.

6. I find that the order under revision is quite detailed and

well reasoned. The trial Court has noticed that though defendant No.1

in the written statement filed by him had admitted the agreement to

sell having been entered into by him with the plaintiff on 6.1.2005

and having received Rs. 9 lacs but has pointed out that date for

execution of the sale deed was fixed as 5.5.2005 and not 5.8.2005

3 of 4

and there was cutting in the date, so as to make it appear as 5.8.2005.

In that way, the plaintiff was aware of this objection having been

taken from defendant No.1 right from the beginning and he could

have led evidence in affirmative when the case had been fixed for

evidence of plaintiff. Nothing prevented the plaintiff from examining

any document expert / forensic expert during the course of his

evidence in affirmative, but he did not do so and rather when

defendants No. 2 and 3 had lead evidence including examining a

document expert, he moved an application to rebut the evidence

adduced by defendants No. 2 and 3, which is certainly not

permissible. The trial Court has referred to law on this point by citing

judgments that hand writing expert cannot be allowed to be examined

in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence, under the circumstances,

so as to fill up the lacuna without satisfying the court that such

evidence is required for effective adjudication of the case.

7. The order under revision is certainly not perverse or

arbitrary. It does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The

application moved by legal representatives of the plaintiff was rightly

declined and no reason is there to allow the same.

8. The revision petition is found to be without any merit

and the same is dismissed accordingly.

                                              ( H.S. Madaan )
             th
December 6 , 2022                                  Judge
chugh

             Whether speaking / reasoned             Yes / No

            Whether reportable                       Yes / No

                               4 of 4