Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Sher Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Gantu & Another – Respondents
CMPMO No.368 of 2023 a/w CMPMO No.369 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Trigun Singh Negi, Advocate.
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of applications for additional documents and local inspection, emphasizing the need for timely evidence and the absence of imminent prejudice to the plaintiff's case.
Headnote:
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 26 Rule 9 - Specific performance of agreement - Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement and cancellation of a subsequent sale deed - Defendant admitted execution of agreement but denied possession - Applications for additional documents and local inspection dismissed as belated and irrelevant - Court found no merit in the petitions. (Paras 2-15)
(B) Specific Performance - The court emphasized that the plaintiff must demonstrate sufficient reasons for late submission of evidence and that the absence of documents must cause imminent prejudice to the case. (Paras 10-13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant No.1 for the sale of land, paid part consideration, and claimed possession. Defendant No.1 later sold the land to defendant No.2, prompting the plaintiff to seek specific performance and cancellation of the sale deed.
Findings of Court:
The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for additional documents and local inspection, finding them belated and irrelevant.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of additional documents and the necessity of local inspection for determining possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to show sufficient reasons for the late filing of documents and that the trial court's decision was a permissible view.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Satyen Vaidya, J.)
Both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment as these arise out of the proceedings in Civil Suit No.108-1 of 2015 pending on the files of learned Civil Judge, Rampur.
2. The petitioner in both the petitions is the plaintiff in above noted suit, which has been filed for a specific performance of agreement dated 07.11.2014 and for cancellation of sale deed No.107/2015 registered on 27.02.2015 in the office of Sub Registrar, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
3. The case as set up by the plaintiff before learned trial Court is that defendant No.1 was to discharge the liability of bank and for such purpose needed the money, which he obtained from the plaintiff. The plaintiff on the request of defendant No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.26,500/-. Defendant No.1 used the said amount for discharging the liability of the bank. On receipt of the amount, defendant No.1 had delivered the possession of the suit land to plaintiff. Thereafter, on 07.11.2014, defendant No.1 had executed the agreement to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.45,000/- out of which a receipt of Rs.26,500/- was acknowledged and the remaining amount of Rs.18,500/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. The plaintiff has further averred that after being put in possession of the suit land he has raised apple orchard on the same.
4. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1 has illegally sold the suit land to defendant No.2 for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 27.02.2015 and on the happening of such event he came to realize that defendant No.1 had breached the terms of agreement dated 07.11.2014.
5. Defendant No.1 in his written statement has not denied the execution of agreement. He has admitted that an agreement to sell was executed by him in favour of the plaintiff whereby he had agreed to sell 7 biswas of land for sale consideration of Rs.45,000/-. The factum of possession of suit land with the plaintiff has been denied and as a consequence, the raising of apple orchard on the suit land by the plaintiff also stands denied. He has alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled for a decree of specific performance as he himself had avoided the performance of the agreement.
6. Defendant No.2 has also filed his separate written statement and has denied the averments made in the plaint generally.
7. The issues were framed and thereafter both the sides have led their respective evidence. Thereafter, the plaintiff came up with two separate applications, one under Order 7 Rule 14 and other under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By way of first application, a prayer was made to allow the plaintiff to place and prove on record documents i.e. an affidavit of defendant No.1 dated 07.11.2014 confirming the possession of plaintiff; letter issued by the bank with respect to vacation of charge on the suit land and objection petition filed by the plaintiff to the attestation of mutation in pursuance to the execution of sale deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. In the other application for appointment of Local Commissioner, the prayer has been made for local inspection of the suit land to ascertain the factum of possession as also the existence of apple trees thereon.
8. Both the applications were contested by the defendants and in result both came to be dismissed by learned trial Court by the orders impugned in these petitions.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
10. As regards the application seeking leave to file and prove additional documents, learned trial Court has held that the application was filed belatedly after pendency of suit for about 8 years and further the documents sought to be placed on record were not relevant to the controversy.
11. Admittedly, the application seeking leave to file additional documents was preferred by the plaintiff after the evidence of both sides was close
