Baijnath Mahto v. Smt. Dr. Pratima Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVISION No.30 of 2022 ====================================================== Baijnath Mahto & Anrs.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Dr. Pratima Singh ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Bishwa Nath Chaudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2023 Heard Mr. Bishwa Nath Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the opposite party.
This Civil Revision is filed against the order dated 15.09.2021 passed in Title Suit No. 05 of 2018 by the learned Sub Judge, Kahalgaon whereby, the defendants / petitioner's petition has been rejected under order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The suit is for specific performance of contract based on unregistered agreement for sale dated 11.04.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid agreement for sale was cancelled on 13.05.2016. From perusal of Annexure '1' of the plaint, it appears that in paragraph 6, it is stated that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the price as per the instruction of the defendant mentioned fully in the
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2022(10) dt.24-04-2023 2/3 Zarbiyananama. But in the meantime, on 13.05.2016, the defendant with some mediators reached to the house of the plaintiff and asked her to show Zarbiyananama dated 11.04.2016. On her request, the plaintiff gave her the Zarbiyananama. After taking the same, in her possession, one person, namely, Santosh Kumar singh and witness, namely, Raj Kishore Mahto unilaterally cancelled the Zarbiyananama and crossed it with red ink pen and both have put their respective signatures over it. They did not stop there but further put some remarks on the both pages of the zarbiyanama and thereby supposed to have cancelled it.
It is further explained in paragraph 7 and 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff also pleaded that he requested the defendant and her henchmen not to cross and cancel the zarbiyananama but they did not stop to do as they wished. However, the defendant returned the original agreement dated 11.04.2016 to the plaintiff which the plaintiff kept in her possession. The plaintiff further accepted in his plaint that since the date of the said mischievous act i.e. 13.05.
Patna High Court C.R. No.30 of 2022(10) dt.24-04-2023 3/3 name. But the defendant did not bother to do the same. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Represented By GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy And Another Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Others reported in 2015(8) SCC 331 and considering the facts and circumstances as also upon perusing the plaint, this court therefore, does not find that the learned court below has committed error of jurisdiction and illegality in passing the impugned order.
Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. (Khatim Reza, J) Gaurav Kumar/- U