Sukhdev Singh vs Manish Agarwal - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 769

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 769

ANIL KSHETARPAL
Sukhdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Manish Agarwal – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate; For the Appellant(in RSA-566 of 2020), for Respondent no.2((in RSA-5792 of 2019).
Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent no.1 (in RSA-5792 of 2019 and RSA-566-2020).
Mr. Atul Aggarwal, Advocate; For the Appellant(in RSA-5792 of 2019) for Respondent-Sukhdev Singh (In RSA-566-2020).

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, two connected second appeals arising from the plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell passed by the courts below shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In the considered opinion of the Court, the following two issues arise for consideration:-

(1) Whether the statement of witness in judicial proceedings, which does not fall within the scope of section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is a relevant piece of evidence in subsequent suit or judicial proceedings?

(2) If the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts are based on inadmissible and irrelevant evidence resulting in perversity, whether in second appeal filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, the High Court is debarred from re-appreciating the evidence?

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

Facts

4. Respondent-Munish Aggarwal (plaintiff) filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell while claiming that on 06.10.