IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5165 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: October 31, 2011. Pritpal Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Ram Piari and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent no.5. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 19.05.2010, Annexure P2 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Abohar. CR No.5165 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that the present suit was filed for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.12.1998 executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in favour of petitioner-plaintiff and however, later on respondent-defendant no.1 executed sale deed regarding the property in dispute in favour of respondents-defendants no.3 and 4 who are daughter-in- law and son of Sohna Ram, who has since expired. It is further contended that an application was filed by petitioner-plaintiff alongwith copy of the said sale deed for admitting the sale deed and however, respondents-defendants refused to admit the same. However, learned trial Court instead of allowing request of petitioner-plaintiff to adduce additional evidence to prove the said sale deed, passed the impugned order by adjourning the case for evidence of defendant. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent-defendant that there is no dispute that sale deed regarding the land in dispute was executed by respondent-defendant no.1, Sohna Ram in favour of respondents no.3 and 4 and this fact was not denied in the written statement filed by deceased –Sohna Ram. Hence, it is contended that respondent-defendant does not dispute the factum of execution of sale deed by Sohna Ram –deceased in favour of respondents-defendants no.3 and 4. 2 CR No.5165 of 2010 Hence, in view of the specific plea taken by respondent- defendant, no further order is required to be passed in this revision petition. Disposed of accordingly. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 31, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3