CR No.6018 of 2014

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.6018 of 2014

Date of Decision: 06.09.2014

Prem Chand

..... Petitioner

Versus

M/s Satluj Construction Ltd.

and another

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

Present:

Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes.

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for possession by way of

specific performance of property based on a sale agreement. It is his say that

the entire sale consideration has passed and he has been handed over

physical possession of the suit property by the vendor but who has backed

out of the deal and has not come forward to execute the sale deed. The suit

was been filed in 2009 and issues were framed in September 2010. The

petitioner has produced only one witness in support of his case so far and

has gathered as many as 29 adjournments along the way, many of which

were last opportunities and out of which past sum total as many as 15 of

them were effective dates of hearing when witnesses ought to have been in

attendance for recording of their evidence but failed to appear.

To take stock of the situation; if under a sale agreement plaintiff

admits possession passed with agreement to sell then the sale agreement

MANJU

2014.09.08 14:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR No.6018 of 2014

-2-

will not turn into evidence till stamp duty is paid though the suit may be

maintainable but the document would not be looked into except for

collateral purposes.

If this is the position then the learned trial Court committed no

error in closing the evidence of the plaintiff after assessing the conduct of

the plantiff in prolonging the proceedings he himself initiated looking for

specific relief and spread the case thin over 25 adjournments.

I have already explained in Civil Revision No.1556 of 2014 titled

Bharat Rajput vs Amrik Singh Aulakh and others decided on 03^rd March,

2014 while examining the question of grant of last opportunities and

observed that they cannot go on endlessly to which I would now add

without ultimately bringing the Court itself to disrepute in granting endless

accommodation. If in a suit for specific performance of property brought

under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 a plaintiff who does not show due

diligence in prosecuting his case he can hardly expect any sympathy from

the Court substantially reducing the market value of the property of the

vendor if left free to deal with. These are well known tricks played by

property dealers to paralyse real estate for speculative and devious ends

though the plaintiff may or may not be one such.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground warranting

interference in this matter in exercise of power of superintendence under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India and would dismiss the petition.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)

JUDGE

06.09.2014

manju

MANJU

2014.09.08 14:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh