R.S.A No. 1727 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1727 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : August 20, 2009 Shri Krishnamurthy Suresh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Shri SS Gulati ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Appellant in person. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below whereby the suit of the respondent was partly decreed and the respondent was held entitled for recovery of Rs. 2,85,000/- along with interest @ 8% pa on the ground that the appellant had executed an agreement to sell his property but lateron did not execute the sale deed. The following questions have been proposed :- i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff can be decided in his favour merely on the basis of his averments in the absence of any evidence, oral or documentary ? R.S.A No. 1727 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: ii) Whether the Courts below have right in law in not taking notice of Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as provided under Section 56 & 57(1) of the said Act ? iii) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary parties ? iv) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit ? The appellant has addressed arguments on questions No.(iii) and (iv) only, and also raised an argument that the civil Court at Faridabad had no jurisdiction. The appellant has argued that it was ND Bhatia who had given him the money and that he was the proposed buyer and, thus, SS Gulati (respondent) had no locus standi to file the present suit. The receipt executed by the appellant, the two letters written by him and the letter written in response thereto clearly reveal that ND Bhatia was the property agent and in fact in the letter Ex.D2 written by the appellant himself, he stated that ND Bhatia had introduced SS Gulati to him as the intending purchaser. The appellant has tried to raise an argument that in response to his letter wherein he had demanded that full particulars of the real buyer be disclosed, ND Bhatia sent a letter, Ex.D6 wherein he only disclosed that `he had gone into a deal with the appellant and he need not to worry he would get the balance amount within time mutually settled by them'. As per the appellant, the fact that ND Bhatia had mentioned that he had gone into a deal and the appellant would get the amount within the time mutually settled clearly shows that it was ND Bhatia who was the purported buyer. In my opinion, the clinching document is the receipt in which the name of the buyer has been kept blank and ND Bhatia has signed as a R.S.A No. 1727 of 2006 (O&M) ::3:: witness. This clearly shows that ND Bhatia could not have been the purchaser and this fact has been noticed by the Courts below. Thus, it cannot be held that ND Bhatia was either necessary or proper party or that SS Gulati could not maintain the suit. With regard to jurisdiction, the appellant has argued that this was a clear case where only the Court at Delhi had jurisdiction because the contract was entered into and the receipt executed at Delhi. He has also emphasized the fact that objection in this regard was taken at the very initial stage. However, Section 21(1) of the CPC clearly envisages that even if an objection to the place of suing is taken at the earliest possible time, an appellate Court can interfere only if there has been consequent failure of justice. In the present case, admittedly, the appellant was given full opportunity to lead his evidence and in fact he did lead his evidence, he was represented by a counsel and was present during several hearings. Thus, it cannot be held that there was any failure of justice. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 20, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1727 of 2006 (O&M) ::4::