C.R. No. 1931 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1931 of 2011 Date of Decision: 3.10.2011 Smt. Malkiat Kaur ....Petitioner. Versus Mohinder Singh and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Atul K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Defendant No.2-petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5.2.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial court whereby her prayer for leading additional evidence had been declined. 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.4.2005 executed by respondent No.2 in his favour, wherein he had impleaded the petitioner as defendant No.2 as the land was purchased by her on 16.12.2005 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.8.2003. The sale deed dated 16.12.2005 has also been challenged on the ground that the same has been executed in order to defeat the right of the plaintiff C.R. No. 1931 of 2011 -2- on the basis of agreement to sell dated 6.4.2005. Respondent No.2 and the petitioner filed their respective written statements. Respondent No.2 in his written statement pleaded that respondent No.1 was doing the business of money lending and in the year 2002 he approached respondent No.1 for getting the land for domestic needs when he advanced a loan of Rs.30,000/- on interest of 3% per month and repaid the said loan. He further pleaded that the property worth Rs.7-8 lacs cannot be sold for a meager amount of Rs.75,000/-. The petitioner- defendant No.2 pleaded that respondent No.2 entered into an agreement to sell with her husband on 19.8.2003 and received Rs.1,50,000/- as an earnest money and the date was fixed as 18.2.2005 for execution of the sale deed. On 4.2.2005, the husband of defendant No.2-petitioner issued a notice to respondent No.2 for execution of the sale deed and the date for execution of sale deed was mutually extended to 17.6.2005 and thereafter the date was extended upto 16.12.2005 on which date, the sale deed was executed. Respondent No.1 filed replication to the written statements filed by petitioner and respondent No.2. Thereafter the case was adjourned for evidence. On 31.8.2010, the petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence. The trial court vide order dated 5.2.2011 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to prove the agreement to sell dated 19.8.2003 on the basis of which sale deed was executed on 16.12.2005 by defendant No.1 in favour of the C.R. No. 1931 of 2011 -3- petitioner which was prior in point of time to the agreement of sale dated 6.4.2005, specific performance of which has been sought in the suit filed by the plaintiff, it was necessary to produce the postal receipt, legal notices sent by the husband of the petitioner to defendant No.1 and the acknowledgment. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) through LRs v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, AIR 2009 SC 1604 and of this Court in Ram Singh v. Pirthi and others, 1997(1) CCC 667 (P&H) and Pawan Kumar v. Raj Kumar and others 2007(1) PLR 761 in support of his submissions to contend that the evidence which was essential for the just decision of the case should be ordinarily allowed by the Court even if it may be by way of additional evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the trial court declining the application for additional evidence. He further submitted that defendant No.2-petitioner while appearing as DW1 had accepted that there was no mention of agreement to sell dated 19.8.2003 in the alleged sale deed which was executed on 16.12.2005 and the agreement of sale had also not been produced in order to prove that there was prior agreement to the one specific performance of which was sought by the plaintiff in the suit. 6. After giving thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the postal receipt, the legal notices and the acknowledgment in the absence of the original agreement to sell dated C.R. No. 1931 of 2011 -4- 19.8.2003 could be allowed by way of additional evidence to prove the existence of the said agreement of sale, learned counsel was unable to justify on any legal principles. Thus, no justification could be shown for allowing the application for additional evidence. Moreover, the trial court while declining the said application had observed that when the suit had matured for disposal, that the application had been moved with an intention to delay the proceedings. It was also noticed that no opportunity can be granted for filling in lacuna in the evidence. 7. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to notice that they do not advance the case of the petitioner as he has not been able to show that the additional evidence which was sought to be produced could prima facie establish the existence of alleged agreement of sale dated 19.8.2003 in the facts and circumstances. 8. In view of the above, no error could be pointed out in the order impugned herein. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit. October 3, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE