The judgment emphasizes the importance of full disclosure of material facts and the applicability of procedural rules in appeals.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the appellate Court”) in file No. 30/Appeal titled Ghulam Rasool Vs. Kartar Singh, whereby the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed. The respondent Sh. Kartar Singh filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the appellant and others from interfering into the ownership and peaceful possession of the respondent over a piece of land measuring 03 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 75 situated at Ragoura Tehsil and District Jammu. In the plaint, it was pleaded by the respondent that he was owner in possession of land measuring 03 kanals under Khasra No. 75, out of which 02 kanals, had been purchased by him from the father of the appellant, namely Abdul Aziz by virtue of sale deed dated 15.04.1992 and rest of the land came into his possession in terms of the agreement to sell dated 07.10.1997 and irrevocable power of attorney executed by said Sh. Abdul Aziz. It was further claimed that the respondent was put in possession of the land only after he paid total consideration of Rs. 70,000/-. It was, thus, alleged that the sons of defendant Abdul Aziz including the appellant herein along with their father had been interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent, therefore, cause of action accrued to file the suit.

4. The suit was entertained by the trial Court and all the defendants including the appellant herein were summoned to appear and file written statement. The defendants including the appellant herein failed to file written within the stipulated period of 90 days. The application filed by the appellant and others seeking extension of time to file written statement too was rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 15.03.2016 and consequently, the right of the appellant and other co-defendants in the suit to file written statement was struck off.

5. It is further evident that the respondent led his evidence in ex-parte by way of affidavits of the witnesses. In all, the respondents tendered his own evidence and evidence of one witness namely, Parkash Katoch. It is further apparent that the appellant, whose defence was struck off did not exercise his right of cross-examination. Be that as it may, on the basis of the ex-parte evidence led by the respondent, the trial Court passed a judgment and decree on 12.07.2016 in favour of the respondent.

6. Aggrieved, the appellant alone filed an appeal before the appellate Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the respondent had not approached the trial Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts and, therefore, was not entitled to equitable relief of injunction and also on the ground that the petitioner was claiming a decree of perpetual injunction on the basis of an agreement to sell which does not create any right in favour of the person in whose favour it is executed. It was also contended in the appeal that the respondent had an efficacious remedy of seeking enforcement of the agreement to sell/contract of sale and, therefore, in terms of Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, no injunction could have been claimed by the respondent and granted by the trial Court.

7. The appellate Court considered the contentions of the appellant threadbare but did not find any substance therein. Accordingly, the appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant as also his brother Mohd. Ali vide its judgment dated 18.08.2017, i