High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Mohammad Iqbal v. Bashir & Anr - RSA-4442-2004  RD-P&H 1575 (9 March 2006)
RSA No. 4442 of 2004(O&M)
Date of Decision: .1703.2006
Bashir and another
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellant JUDGMENT
C.M. No.2294-C of 2006
In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit of the counsel, it is allowed and order dated 20.2.2006, vide which Civil Misc. No.1597-C of 2006, filed for restoration of RSA No.4442 of 2004, which was dismissed in default on 14.2.2006, was dismissed, stands recalled, C.M. No.1597-C of 2006 is restored to its original number. On request, the same is taken up for hearing today.
C.M. No.1597-C of 2006
In view of reasons given in this application, which is supported by an affidavit of the counsel, it is allowed, order dated 14.2.2006 stands recalled and RSA No.4442 of 2004 is restored to its original number. On request, the same is taken up for hearing today.
C.M. No.11170-C of 2004
This is an application for condonation of 5 days delay in filing the appeal. The same is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasons mentioned therein, which are sufficient to condone the delay, it is allowed RSA No. 4442 of 2004(O&M) - 2 -
subject to all just exceptions and delay of 5 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
RSA No.4442 of 2004
Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1.6.1994. Their suit was decreed. Appellant-defendant failed in appeal.
It is apparent from the records that the respondents have successfully proved execution of the agreement to sell by producing sufficient evidence on record. It has also come on record that they remained willing throughout to perform their part of the contract. However, it was the appellant who has failed to stick to the terms and conditions of the agreement, referred to above. When, despite efforts on the part of the respondents, the appellant failed to execute the sale deed, present suit was filed. Before this Court, it has been said that opportunity, to lead evidence, was not granted to the appellant. However, perusal of interim orders, Annexure A/1 to A/5 clearly indicates that four effective opportunities were granted to the appellant, to lead his evidence. Prior to the date of closing of his evidence by order, when suit was adjourned, it was ordered that the next date would be the last opportunity. Despite that, he failed to produce any evidence. He even failed to file his own affidavit in Court. In view of findings given by the appellate Court below in paragraph Nos.10 to 16 of its judgment, no case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact as counsel has failed to raise any substantial question of law at the time of arguments.
March 17, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.