Amit Rawal, J.

C.M. No. 9656-C of 2012

1. Deficiency of the Court fees, has been made good.

2. C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 9657-C of 2012

3. For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 27 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

4. C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 13712-C of 2015

5. The present application is at the instance of the applicant-appellant by invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record the documents (Annexures A-5 to A-8), by way of additional evidence.

6. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate submits that respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit against the appellant-defendant for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.04.2005 (Ex.P1) and also subsequent endorsements regarding the land in question measuring 20 bighas 5 biswas 10 biswansis, i.e., half share of land measuring 40 bighas 11 biswas, situated in village Jalalgarh in District Sangrur, which was allegedly agreed to be sold @ Rs. 1,23,000/- per bigha against receipt of Rs. 13,00,000/- as earnest money and possession was also delivered to the respondent-plaintiff.

7. He further submits that contents of the agreement, aforementioned, would reveal that respondent-plaintiff had been extending the date of registration of the sale deed by way of endorsements as there was a stay order on the suit land, in another suit filed against the appellant-defendant titled as Salinder Singh vs. Kesar Singh which was decided on 11.09.2006. In the aforementioned suit, there was an interim order of attachment of the suit land as the suit was for recovery of Rs. 9,90,000/- which was filed in the year 2002. The matter was compromised and whatever the due amount was paid by the applicant/appellant-defendant and in this regard, the statements of the parties in the said suit were recorded on 11.09.2006. It is the statements and order of the Court noticing the compromise sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence.

8. It has been further stated that factum of pending of the aforementioned suit and its decision is evident from the respondent/plaintiff's own documents, i.e. Ex.P3 and Ex.P-7. The aforementioned documents are essential and necessary for the effective adjudication, much less, for substantial justice between the parties as it would enable this Court to pronounce the judgment in the most satisfactory manner, as well as, it would also enable the Court by accepting the documents which will also help the Court to pronounce the judgment.

9. In support of the aforementioned contentions, he relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Karnataka High Court, as well as, by this Court which read thus:-

(i) North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwan Das (D) by LRs 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 165;

(ii) Surjit Singh and others vs. Gurwant Kaur and others, 2014 (4) RCR(Civil) 343;

(iii) Rajesh Kumar vs. Mangat Rai and others 2012(2) PLR 334;

(iv) Pooja and others vs. Jagdish Singh, 2014(1) PLR 535;

(v) Germanjit @ Jermanjit Singh and others vs. Malkit Kaur and others, 2012 AIR CC 1427;

(vi) Perfect Polybags Private Ltd. vs. Canara Bank, 2014 ILR (Karnataka) 6280; and

(vii) Malayalam Plantations Ltd. vs. State of Kerala and another, 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 609.

10. Reply to the application has been filed.

11. Mr. J.S. Puri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent-plaintiff submits that application is not maintainable as it tantamounts to filling up of the lacunae. In pursuance to the judgment and decree, sale deed has been executed and registered on 15.10.2014. The reasons assigned in the application do not comply with the requirement of provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other suit filed by one Salinder Singh has no co-relation as incorporation of reason of stay order in another case vis-a-vis extension of time