Saurav Jain vs Mohan Lal - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1383

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1383

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Saurav Jain – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal – Respondent
CR No. 442 of 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Revision petition against order dismissing application for additional evidence in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell - The court affirmed the necessity for showing due diligence in producing evidence; failure to do so leads to dismissal of the claim. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Specific Performance - Requirement to establish readiness and willingness to perform the contract - Evidence of readiness and willingness must be led affirmatively; failure to present key documents is fatal to the claim. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff-petitioner sought possession of property through specific performance of an agreement dated 16.09.2015, which the defendant-respondent denied, labeling it as a forged document. The application for additional evidence was dismissed on grounds of lack of diligence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff-petitioner failed to provide valid reasons for the delay in presenting additional evidence, which was deemed an attempt to fill gaps in their case.

Issues: The main issues included whether the additional evidence was crucial for establishing readiness and willingness, and whether the dismissal of the application was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a party must demonstrate that additional evidence could not be previously obtained despite due diligence; inadequacies in evidence presentation weaken a claim for specific performance.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. application for additional evidence dismissed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court finds no merits in the application. (Para 6 , 7)
4. petition dismissed; order upheld. (Para 8)

Judgment

Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure P-6) vide which the application for leading additional evidence filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession of property constructed on plot no.430 having an area of 100 sq. yards comprised in khasra no.697/358, khata no.632/657, by way of a specific performance of agreement dated 16.09.2015. It was averred in para 2 of the plaint that the plaintiff-petitioner has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The defendant-respondent denied the agreement to sell in toto being a forged and fabricated document. In the alternative, it was pleaded that even if the agreement to sell is proved there was no readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner. On 08.01.2018 the issues were framed and issue no.1 was specifically “Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.09.2015? OPP”. The evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner started on 21.02.2018 and was closed vide order dated 22.04.2019 after availing 14 opportunities. The evidence of the defendant-respondent commenced on 24.05.2019 and was closed on 21.01.2020. Thereafter, arguments were heard on 28.01.2020, 03.02.2020, 04.02.2020 and 05.02.2020. On 05.02.2020, an application for leading additional evidence was filed wherein it was averred that additional evidence was warranted by law and equity and that the plaintiff-petitioner be allowed to produce the following as the additional evidence :

(i) Accountant of the firm M/s Vardhman Trading Company, Ludhiana along with the account books of the firm M/s Vardhman Trading Company having the capital account of the plaintiff for the year 2015 to upto date.

(ii) Concerned Clerk, Canara Bank, Court Road, Ludhiana along with the copy of statement account of Saving Bank Account of the plaintiff Sourav Jain.

(iii) Concerned Clerk HDFC Bank, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana along with the copy of statement account of Saving Bank Account of the plaintiff Sourav Jain.

3. A reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 03.02.2021, the application for leading additional evidence was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has contended that the additional evidence now sought to be produced is germane to the dispute and finds its basis in the pleadings of the parties. It is the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that in the legal notice, which was served upon the defendant-respondent, even the details of the draft for the balance sale consideration were mentioned. It is further the contention that the plaintiff-petitioner has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the said additional evidence is only in furtherance of the pleadings of the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Rekha Gaur vs. Veerpal Singh, CR No. 2713 of 2018 decided on 05.07.2022, Baljeet Singh vs. Ram Pal & Ors., CR No. 7913 of 2016 decided on 20.01.2020, Gurdip Singh vs. Harpinder Singh Gill , 2020 (1) Law Herald (P&H) 323, Mahinder Siri vs. Bhupinder Singh & Anr., CR No. 1137 of 2016 decided on 31.01.2020, Parveen Kumar vs. Khem Raj & Ors., CR No. 2122 of 2018 decided on 29.05.2018, Omwati vs. Anita Devi & Ors., 2015 (61) RCR (Civil) 479, Manmohan Singh vs. Davinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur @ Gurminder Kaur & Ors., 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 661, Smt. Bhulia Devi vs. Smt. Sheela Devi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document