Paramjit Singh v. Puja And Another
!"
#$
"%&'&#() * * ***++",, (!
-'*
***"'+#(."(!
) / 0 *
$
"
"# %
%
" "
"
"
% +, +* *++- .
*',+ / #
% ( *+++++1$
%# % 2
3 " +4 *++- #% "
% 3
% 5
# +4 +) *++- 3
*4 +* *+ *
#
*' +) *+ * 7
% # #
%
% +, +* *++- #
#
%
%
& "
%
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for ? OPP.
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory performance as prayed for ? OPP.
4. Whether the agreement to sell dated 06.02.2008 is forged and fabricated document?OPD
5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable on the ground that there is no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD
6. Whether the defendant No.2 had no authority to execute the sale deed in question?OPD
7. Relief.
#
8 *+ 4 "/ #
+8 + *+ 4 :
:
+, +' *+ ;
6 *
;
inter alia
1 "
%
% +- + *+ ) ! # +;
+) %
< #
# +8 + *+ 4
2
, <
% #
/ "#
# +;
#
+) % %
#
"
"
#
- < "%
%
9
%
%
" #
/ # %
; +) *+ 4
"
!
8 + *+ 42
/ #
#
; +) *+ 4
*4 +) *+ 4 < "
#
% , * *++-
+4 +) *++-
*'
# # # %
"
+ Per contra, %# # "
"%
+8 + *+ 4
# +) % +
+, #
# #
#
+;
"
# = % # ! %
% # #
"
# 7 "% " % "%
"
1
# +;
+) % %#
% +- + *+ ) !
)+ + *+ )
; *+ ) *' *+ ) * * *+ )
# +8 + *+ 4 " >% & 3 $ ?#@
"
" "/ # #
* * *+ )2
+8 + *+ 4
"No evidence of plaintiff is present despite the fact that today last opportunity was granted to the plaintiff. It seems that plaintiff is not interested in pursuing the case, as such evidence of the plaintiff is closed by order of the court. Arguments heard. Vide my separate detailed judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room." 0 %
"
6A" % Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 271160wherein it has been observed that BNo litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system C 5 %
+;
#
" " % 3
% "%
! " % #
# #
% 3
#
"
2 .
Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. Explanation7 Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present. 3.
Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default,7 (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith, or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under rule 2."
;
%
"
" 1
2
%
"
%$
" % $
6A" % Mohan Das v. Ghisia Bai, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2605;
Inderbir Singh v. Kirpal Singh (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 501796; and Renu Bakshi v. Prem Parkash Sharma, (P&H) : Law Finder Doc Id # 855980,
"
,
# " <
% %
*'
"#
0
#
<
+, +' *+ ;
#
" <
#
"
"
< < # Bbut applicant failed to convince that it was not done inspite of due diligence in the Trial Court and to my mind these all documents and facts were well within the knowledge of the applicant and applicant can not request for additional evidence on these grounds and if such type of applications on such type of reasons for additional evidence are allowed then it will open a flood gate of such type of applications which will further delay the proceedings in courts to reach to its logical end and on the whole the applicant has not been able to show that the request made in the application is in any manner essential for the just decision of the caseC
"
%
/
"
"
#
%"
"
0
: 6
!
"# $ % &
$
())*+,)
"11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted."
- 0
%
- ! .
/ 0 1 2 !
31% &
$ '
( 45676)
"Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17 7 Additional Evidence sought to be produced after closing of evidence of both the parties, alleging that previous lawyer was negligent in perusing the case 7 Trial court rightly observed that the evidence, sought to be produced was in the knowledge of the plaintiff since the very
beginning 7 Therefore, the application was rightly rejected 7 Revision petition dismissed."
! 8/! /# 1% &
$ '
(,5*)++ "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 7 Additional Evidence 7 Plaintiff's evidence was closed by the order of court 7 Said order was never challenged by plaintiff by filing any revision petition against the same 7 Now by making this application for additional evidence, plaintiff cannot set at naught the said order 7 His application for additional evidence was rightly dismissed."
*+ E
#
%
"
"
# .&'5&''".
**
%
?@
# ?@
* * Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No