JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

INDEX

CM-13927-C-2025

Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 425 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, present application is allowed and the delay of 425 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration is hereby condoned.

CM-13928-C-2025

This is an application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 06.08.2024.

For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 06.08.2024 is recalled and the main appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number.

RSA-2395-1990

CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL

1. The LRs of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh have filed the present appeal. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 12.08.1987 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 25 kanals fully detailed in the head note of the plaint and that the sale deed dated 24.12.1984 executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 is illegal, has been dismissed. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1990 vide which the appeal filed by the LRs of the plaintiff (present appellants) has also been dismissed by the Ist Appellate Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS/ LRS OF THE PLAINTIFF

2. Learned counsel for the appellants / LRs of the plaintiff has submitted that the sale deed dated 24.12.1984, which is stated to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants no.1 and 2, is illegal and deserves to be set aside, as fraud had been played upon the plaintiff by defendant no.3, who is father of defendants no.1 and 2, in getting the said sale deed dated 24.12.1984 executed. It is argued that in fact defendant no.3-Jagjit Singh had approached the plaintiff and had stated that since there was a bore installed in his land, thus, defendant no.3 would be able to get a loan amounting to Rs.16,000/- from the government for the purpose of installation of the bore and since the bore was already there in the land, thus, the plaintiff would not have to bear any expenses. It is submitted that said defendant no.3 had further stated that on account of subsidy, the plaintiff would be required to return only Rs.12,000/- and it was the case of the plaintiff that in view of the said allurement of defendant no.3, the plaintiff executed the document dated 24.12.1984, which was told to him to be executed for the purpose of security of the loan but actually turned out to be a sale deed. It is further submitted that the said document was never read over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had affixed thumb impressions on the understanding that the said document was being executed for the purpose of getting loan from the government.

3. It is argued that the plaintiff had made specific averments in the plaint, to the above effect, alleging fraud by the defendants. It is submitted that the plaintiff had appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and had fully supported his case and had substantiated the fraud. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that in the present case, as per the sale deed there were two attesting witnesses, one being Lal Singh Lambardar and the other being Roop Singh Panch and none of the said attesting witnesses had been examined by the defendants and thus, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the defendants. It is argued that it is th