Tarsem Singh v. Jitender Singh and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR-3272-2023 (O&M) Reserved on: 06.05.2025 Pronounced on: 09.05.2025 TARSEM SINGH . . . . Petitioner JITENDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. **** . . . . Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****
Legal Reasoning
Present: - Mr. Sachin Rai Vaid, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate, with Mr. Sonia Bohat, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in a Civil Suit bearing CIS No.CS/1299/2014 titled ‘Tarsem Singh Vs. Jitender Singh and others’, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala. He is aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure P9), whereby defendant No.1 has been allowed to place on record original family settlement dated 27.12.1999 (Ex.PZ) on an application moved under Section 151 CPC. 2.1 As the paper-book would reveal, it was claimed by the plaintiff that vide a registered agreement to sell dated 27.08.2013, defendant No.1-Jitender had agreed to sell suit property for total consideration of ₹10 lakh to him and had received ₹8 lakh as earnest money. Only an amount of ₹2 lakh remained balance, which was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and given full authority to raise construction and to obtain electricity/water connection or let out the property. VIVEK PAHWA 2025.05.09 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3272-2023 2025:PHHC: 061760 2.2 Defendant No.2 is the uncle and Defendant No.3 & 4 are the cousins of defendant No.1. They have their residential property adjacent to the suit property and wanted to grab the same on one or the other pretext and so, they started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, compelling him to file a Civil Suit No.645 of 2012 seeking injunction. In that suit, defendant No.1 entered into a compromise with the plaintiff and undertook not to interfere in his possession. An order dated 02.01.2013 was passed in this regard based upon compromise deed dated 01.11.2012, copies of which are Annexures P1 & P2. 2.3 However, later on defendant No.1 conspired with defendants No.2 to 4 and started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also refused to get the sale deed registered, which compelled the plaintiff to file the present suit for seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.08.2012, in which defendants No.2 to 4 were also impleaded as defendants. Trial went on for about 9 years and the case reached at the stage of final arguments. Part arguments were heard on 17.01.2023 and then it was fixed for 18.01.2023, when an application was moved by defendants No.2 to 4 under Section 151 CPC to permit them to place on record a written family settlement, signed by defendant No.1 agreeing that his self acquired suit property shall be used as a passage for ingress by defendants No.2 to 4. The trial Court allowed the said application by way of the impugned order permitting them to place on record the family settlement dated 27.12.1999, copy of which is Annexure P5. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel contends that in the written statement filed by the defendants, there is no reference of any such written family settlement and rather, there is a reference of only an oral family settlement. Learned counsel further contends that parties have already concluded their evidence and even the part arguments have been heard and therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for permitting the defendants to place on record the alleged family settlement (Annexure P5). Learned counsel also contends that VIVEK PAHWA 2025.05.09 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 4 CR-3272-2023 2025:PHHC: 061760 Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC, which permitted any of the party to produce additional evidence at any stage, with the permission of the Court has since been deleted in 1999 and now, there is no such provision so as to produce any additional evidence after conclusion of the evidence by the parties. Prayer is accordingly made for setting aside the impugned order. 4. Refuting the aforesaid submissions, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants that copy of the family settlement was already produced on file as Mark A. At that time, original of Mark A was not traceable. As soon as it was traced, it was sought to be placed on record and permission was also sought to examine other witnesses on file by way of leading additional evidence and that such an application is permissible under Section 151 CPC. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record carefully. 6. The suit is simplicitor for decree of specific performance in respect of the suit property based upon an agreement to sell dated 27.08.2012. No doubt that all the defendants have refuted the claim of the plaintiff, inasmuch as defendant No.1 alleged the said agreement to be fraudulent; whereas defendants No.2 to 4 alleged the said agreement to be a void document and not binding upon them, but at the same time, the perusal of the written statements filed by the two sets of defendants, as placed on record as Annexures P6 & P7, would reveal that there is absolutely no reference of any written family settlement dated 27.12.1999. To the contrary, in the written statement of defendants No.2 to 4, there is clear reference of an oral family settlement. 7. Not only this, parties had admittedly already closed their evidence, when the instant application was moved. It is not disputed that even part arguments had already been heard, when the application was moved. VIVEK PAHWA 2025.05.09 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 4 CR-3272-2023 2025:PHHC: 061760 8. It is clear in the above circumstances that application was moved only to fill in the lacuna and to further delay the proceedings, inasmuch as it had already taken over 9 years to conclude the evidence by the parties and to reach at the final stage. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, particularly in the absence of any pleadings, there was absolutely no justification for the trial Court to permit the defendants to place on record the alleged family settlement dated 27.12.1999. As such, the impugned order, as passed by the trial Court, is hereby set aside. Revision is accordingly accepted. 09.05.2025 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5) (cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6) (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes No VIVEK PAHWA 2025.05.09 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 4