Full Judgment
Civil Revision No.2081 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision Petition No.2081 of 2013 Date of Decision:
22. 1.2014 Kewal Singh ......Petitioner Versus Smt.Parkash Devi & Ors. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Radhe Shyam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Devender Punia, Advocate for the respondents. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
(Oral) The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, petitioner-plaintiff Kewal Singh son of Lachman Singh (for brevity “the plaintiff”.) has instituted the civil suit for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.10.2010, pertaining to the land in dispute, executed by Jai Gopal, predecessor-in- interest of respondent-defendants Parkash Devi, widow of Arjan Dass and other (for short “the defendants”.). The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of suit.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application to compare the signatures of Jai Gopal on the sale deed, bearing Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2081 of 2013 2 No.1636 dated 12.10.2010 with his signatures on the pointed agreement to sell. The application for leading additional evidence was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 15.2.2013.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context.
5. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has filed the civil suit for a decree of specific performance of the indicated agreement to sell executed by Jai Gopal pertaining to the land in litigation. The defendants have refuted the prayer of plaintiff and denied the execution and signatures of Jai Gopal on the agreement to sell. According to the plaintiff that now, it revealed that Jai Gopal had himself executed the sale deed, bearing No.1636 dated 12.10.2010 and his signatures are available on it. The plaintiff wanted to adduce evidence to compare the signatures of Jai Gopal on the sale deed with his signatures on the impugned agreement to sell. The trial Court dismissed the application for additional evidence, by means of impugned order dated 15.2.2013. The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to dismiss the application of plaintiff, was that in a suit for specific performance, he is duty bound to prove the execution of the agreement to sell in question in his favour. The defendants have filed their written statement and disputed the execution of the agreement to sell and additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Here, to me, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2081 of 2013 3 the trial Court committed a legal mistake in this respect.
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that plaintiff now wants to produce evidence to compare the admitted signatures of Jai Gopal on the pointed sale deed with his signatures on the agreement to sell. This is a step in aid to prove the execution of the agreement. The production of expert's evidence and comparison of signatures of Jai Gopal on the sale deed is very much essential to decide the real controversy between the parties and is legal requirement of fair trial. If adequate opportunities are not granted to plaintiff, then, it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to his case.
7. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation, the trial Court ought to have granted at least one opportunity to petitioner-plaintiff to compare the signatures of Jai Gopal on the sale deed with his signatures on the agreement to sell by the expert witness. Moreover, no prejudice was going to be caused to the defendants, particularly when, they could well be compensated with adequate costs in this relevant direction.
8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to plaintiff to compare the signatures of Jai Gopal on the sale deed with his signatures on the indicated agreement to sell by the expert witness. However, this would be subject to payment of ` 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensatory costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. At the same time, the trial Court would ensure the payment of costs personally to the defendants. Above-all, Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.2081 of 2013 4 the payment of costs would be a condition precedent for further prosecution of suit. Needless to mention that the present order has been rendered only in the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of this case and would not be relevant precedent, in any manner, in any other case. Sd/- (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 22.1.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.01.24 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh