Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.M.Jain, J.
Naresh Chandra And Anr.
Versus
Mahavir Singh And Ors.
Civil Revision Petition No. 824 of 2000,
Decided On : JULY 12, 2000
Revision Petition - Additional Evidence - Agreement to Sell - [Section 151 CPC] - [Order 41 Rule 27] - [Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT Delhi] - The court allowed the application for additional evidence to send the disputed agreement to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT Delhi for more scientific examination and report. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to summon the original record from the Income Tax authorities containing the photostat copies of the disputed documents for examination and comparison.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for delivery of vacant possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. During the appeal, the plaintiffs filed an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to send the disputed agreement to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT Delhi for more scientific examination and report. The plaintiffs also requested to summon the original record from the Income Tax authorities for examination and comparison.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had recently come to know about the latest technical facility available with the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The court held that the production of additional evidence was necessary for the court to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner and was a case for allowing additional evidence for a substantial cause. The court allowed the application for additional evidence and directed the plaintiffs to appear before the learned District Judge for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disputed agreement should be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT Delhi for more scientific examination and report. Another issue was whether the original record from the Income Tax authorities containing the photostat copies of the disputed documents should be summoned for examination and comparison.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the production of additional evidence was necessary for the court to pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner and was a case for allowing additional evidence for a substantial cause. The court directed the plaintiffs to appear before the learned District Judge for further proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application for additional evidence and directed the plaintiffs to appear before the learned District Judge for further proceedings. The court also directed the plaintiffs to tender the conditional cost to the defendants-respondents and allowed the plaintiffs to summon a witness from the Income Tax Department along with the relevant record. The court further directed the learned District Judge to send the original agreement to sell to the Forensic Science Laboratory of Govt. of NCT of Delhi for examination/comparison and report.
V.M.Jain, J.
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, dismissing the application dated 20.10.1999 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs Naresh Chandra etc. had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 and for delivery of vacant possession and also declaration against defendants Mahavir Singh etc. In the said suit, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 Mahavir Singh was the absolute owner of the land measuring 102 Kanals and 14 marlas detailed in the plaint and that he entered into a written agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 with plaintiff No. 1 Naresh Chandra for the sale of a part of the suit land measuring 5 acres detailed in the plaint @ Rs. 99 lacs per acre and the total consideration was Rs. 4,95,,00,000/-. It was alleged that at the time of said agreement, a sum of Rs. 11.00 lacs was paid as advance money on 30.1.1995 and a receipt was duly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and the balance consideration of Rs. 4,84,00,000/- (inadvertently written in words in the said agreement as Rupees Four crores eighty four thousand only) was to be received by the vendor from the vendee at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was alleged that the actual physical vacant possession of the suit land was to be delivered by the vendor to the vendee at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was alleged that the vendor was to obtain various sanctions/permissions before executing sale deed in favour of vendee. It was further alleged that as per the agreement, the vendor was to execute the sale deed in favour of the. vendee within a period of four months from the said date. It was alleged in the suit that in pursuance of the said agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995, defendant had submitted on 7.8.1995 application before the Income Tax Department for obtaining necessary permission/clearance for the sale of the said land and the said application was signed by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 and copy of the agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 alongwith other documents was attached alongwith the said application and the necessary permission was granted by the Income Tax department vide letter dated 26.5.1995 and on receipt of the said letter, plaintiff No. 1 wrote letter dated 29.5.1995 to defendant No. 1 informing about the grant of necessary approval and requesting defendant No. 1 to take immediate steps for obtaining other necessary permission etc. for the purpose of executing sale deed. It was alleged that thereupon defendant No. 1 applied to the concerned authorities for obtaining necessary certificate etc. and also attached copy of the agreement and defendant No. 1 had also sworn an affidavit dated 27.6.1995 giving the details of 5 acres of land agreed to be sold. It was alleged that thereafter necessary permission was granted vide endorsement dated 19.7.1995. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995, plaintiff No. 1 had been negotiating for an agreement with plaintiff No. 2, a multinational company, for rendering advisory services and spent huge expenses in consequence of the agreement to sell. Plaintiff No. 1 at the request of defendant No. 1 had also purchased stamp papers in favour of plaintiff No. 2, being the nominee of plaintiff No. 1, of the value of Rs. 61,87,500/- and also got the sale deed ready thereon in favour of plaintiff No. 2 for its execution by defendant No. 1 but inspite of all this, defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed and on 15.3.1996, defendant No. l completely refused to perform his part of the contract even though plaintiff No. 1 had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and was still willing to perform his part of contract and had even got s
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
