RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 10419-C of 2009 and RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 06 , 2009 Iqbal Singh ...... Appellant Versus Ramesh Kumar ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. CM No. 10419-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. The appeal is restored to its original number. With the consent of learned counsel, the appeal is taken up for hearing. RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16.6.99 executed by the appellant in respect of his house. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the learned trial court and then learned First Appellate Court has not erred in not allowing the appellant RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) 2 another opportunity to lead evidence, particularly when the judgment was not pronounced immediately after closure of evidence? ii)Whether the documentary evidence by way of affidavits and the report of the valuer could be ignored by the learned trial court and the learned First Appellate Court,when the matter was not finally decided. Just 5 effective dates were given to the defendant-as explained in forthcoming paras? iii)Whether when after by order closure of evidence of the defendant on 25.2.2004 an application for recalling the order was filed on 16.3.2004 and then the case was adjourned for 8.3.2004,16.3.2004, it was not just and fair in the interest of justice to let the defendant to tender the affidavits and documents in evidence, thus the learned courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them? iv)Whether the learned Courts below have not mis appreciated and ignored the material aspects of evidence, thus the judgments/findings are not vitiated,thus liable to beset aside? v) Whether the plaintiff who even did not know the identity etc. Of the house, could be held to have entered into alleged deal? It would be seen that all the questions relate to the issue of closure of evidence of the defendant. Learned counsel has not been able to convince me that the issue of closure of evidence was illegally decided. It is not disputed that numerous opportunities were granted to the appellant to lead his evidence. Once questions relating to the closure of evidence viz. questions No. (i) and (iii) are held against him, questions No.(ii), (iv) and (v) which are pure questions of fact would also have to be necessarily held against him. In the circumstance this appeal is dismissed. No costs. RSA No. 2291 of 2005 (O&M) 3 Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 06 , 2009 sunita