IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

133 CR-119-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.01.2025 Buta Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Ram Pal ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, vide which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of two agreements to sell viz. Agreement to Sell dated 26.02.2016 and Agreement to Sell dated 22.08.2016, was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint (Annexure P-1), are that on 01.11.2017 the respondent/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No.1227/2017for recovery of Rs.84,70,000/- from the petitioner/defendant with regard to the payments made by the plaintiff in pursuance to the aforesaid Agreement to Sell dated 26.2.2016executed between the parties in respect of suit land measuring 55 kanal 12 marla.The said land was bought by the plaintiff along with one Paramjit Kaur. At the time of execution of Agreement to Sale dated 26.2.2016, a sum of ₹20 lakhs was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. Said Paramjit Kaur had contributed towards the said payment. Thereafter on 22.8.2016, the plaintiff had paid another sum of ₹50 lakhs to the defendant. Said Paramjit Kaur had contributed towards this payment as well. In acknowledgement of the payment, the defendant had executed a writing/ Receipt dated 22.8.2016 itself, which was duly witnessed and attested by the Notary Public Kurukshetra, who entered the same in his register at Serial no. 1934 dated 22.8.2016. It was further pleaded that on 24.8.2016, the defendant had gone to the house of Paramjit Kaur and had asked her to handover the original agreement to them.Accordingly, Paramjit Kaur had handed over the original agreement dated 26.2.2016 to the defendant.It was further mentioned in the plaint that on 02.10.2016, the plaintiff had handed over the original agreement receipt dated 22.08.2016 to the defendant as he had demanded the same. It is further mentioned that the defendant had admitted receiving a sum of ₹70,00,000 as part of the sale consideration from the plaintiff.It was alleged that however, the petitioner had rescinded from the aforesaid agreements and undertook to return the amount of Rs.70 lakh to the plaintiff.

3. Upon notice, the defendant had appeared and filed written statement (Annexure P2) contesting the suit and denying therein that the said agreements to sell had been handed over to him. It is in this background that the plaintiff filed the present application dated ‘Nil’

(Annexure P4) for permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the abovesaid agreement to sell date 26.2.2016, and the writing/Receipt dated 22.8.2016, which has been allowed vide the impugned order. The defendant filed reply dated 11.3.2022 (Annexure P-5), to the said application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that in the reply (Annexure P5), it has been categorically denied by the defendant that the Agreement to Sell dated 26.2.2016 or the writing/receipt dated 22.08.2016 were ever handed over to him by the plaintiff. In his reply, the defendant has also objected that although the plaintiff had pleaded in his application that the agreement was lost, but no criminal complaint in this regard had been made to the police regarding the loss of agreement dated 26.2.2016. It was stated that in the absence of any police complaint, the allegation of the plaintiff of loss of agreement, cannot be believed and taken into consideration. It was also mentioned that a criminal complaint had been filed by the defendant against the plaintiff under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC in which the plaintiff has been summoned vide order dated 16.09.2021 (Annexure P7)