IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, SANGRUR

------
Rajinder Singh son of Teja Singh R/o village Ram Nagar,

Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.

Appellant/plaintiff

Versus

1.Ajaib Singh Son of Banta Singh son R/o Village

Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, 2. Satpal

Singh, 3.Surinder Singh sons of Ajaib all R/o village

Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur

Respondents/defendants

Civil appeal against the judgment and decree

dated 16.10.10 vide which the suit of the

plaintiff has been dismissed; with the prayer

to accept the appeal and to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 16.10.10.

Sir,

The grounds of appeal are submitted as

under:-

1. That the judgment and decree under appeal

was pronounced on 16.10.2010. The certified copy of

judgment and decree was applied on 16.10.10, which was

prepared on 18.10.10 and delivered on 28.10.10. The

appeal is being filed today within limitation. The

certified copy of judgment and decree are attached.

2. That the ld. lower court did not give

sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to lead the

evidence to prove his case. Case was fixed for

2

plaintiff evidence on 18/9/10 and case was adjourned

for 25/9/10 for evidence of plaintiff and again case

was adjourned 9/10/10. On 9.10.2010, the plaintiff

could not appear due to unavoidable circumstances and

the ld. Lower court dismissed the suit U/o 17 Rule 3

CPC on 16.10.2010.

3. That the suit of the plaintiff for

specific performance is based on the agreement to sell

dated 13.10.2010. Defendant after receiving the amount

of the earnest money has signed each page of the

agreement. The defendant himself with his own

handwriting has written that he has received Rs.

50,000/- as earnest money.

4. That the plaintiff has told the entire

story of his case to his counsel and has paid the fee

to him to proceed with the case as per law. The other

litigation of the plaintiff with the defendant is also

pending in the civil court at Dhuri. The plaintiff do

not know the technicalities of the law, the procedure

to summon the witness and to produce other evidence, it

is the counsel of the plaintiff who is to guide him to

produce the evidence and to summon the concerned

witnesses of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff has

paid the fee for the summoning of the witness and for

other evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could

not produce the evidence, as the plaintiff was not

advised by his counsel to produce the evidence. The

plaintiff was advised by his counsel that the

3

litigation of the other suit is pending in the higher

courts, only after the decision of the point involved

in that case, he will give evidence in this case. The

plaintiff believed his counsel and followed his

direction.

5. That the plaintiff has already paid the

earnest money to the defendant and has got the sale

deed executed in his favour of the entire property.

Only the khasra number in dispute was left in the name

of defendant. The plaintiff is ready to perform his

part of contract and the plaintiff has always remained

ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

6. That granting three opportunities to the

party to lead the evidence is not mandatory provision,

the court is competent to grant additional opportunity

under the circumstances subject to the payment of

costs.

7. That the plaintiff has lost his valuable

right to get the property in dispute. The plaintiff is

not expert in the civil court proceeding, the act of

the plaintiff of not producing evidence on three

occasion is malafide, the plaintiff did not produce the

evidence as the counsel advised the plaintiff to

produce the evidence only after the decision of the

point in dispute involved in the other case between the

parties.

8. That prima facie the execution of the

agreement is proved, the defendant indirectly in their

4

written statement has admitted the execution of the

agreement to sell in dispute.

9. That the plaintiff with conclude his

entire evidence in one opportunity. No prejudice will

be caused to the defendant with the grant of one

opportunity to the plaintiff. The defendant can be

compensated with costs and the defendant will further

get opportunity to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff.

10. That on merits there is good case in

favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff wants to get his

case decided on merits.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

the appeal may kindly be allowed and judgment and

decree of the ld. Lower court may be set aside and one

opportunity may kindly be granted to the plaintiff to

lead his evidence.

Nov. 2,2010 Submitted by:-

Rajinder Singh son of Teja

Singh R/o village Ram
Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt.
Patiala.
Appellant

Through counsel

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, SANGRUR

------

Rajinder Singh son of Teja Singh R/o village Ram Nagar,

Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.

Appellant/plaintiff
5

Versus

1.Ajaib Singh Son of Banta Singh son R/o Village

Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, 2. Satpal

Singh, 3.Surinder Singh sons of Ajaib all R/o village

Cheema, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur

Respondents/defendants

Civil appeal against the judgment and decree

dated 16.10.10.

-----

Application U/o 39 rule 1&2 read with

section 151 CPC for restraining the

defendant/ respondent not to sell the

property in dispute bearing comprised of

khasra No. 510 min 1-11 situated within

the revenue estate of village Cheema,

Tehsil Dhuri, till the decision of the

appeal.

Sir,

The application is submitted as under:-

1. That the appellant has filed an appeal

in this Hon`ble Court, which is most likely to

succeed. The averments made in the appeal may be

read as a part of this application.

2. That the defendant has agreed to sell

the property in dispute vide agreement to sell

dated 13.10.2004.

3. That the plaintiff has purchased other

property of the defendant measuring more than 74

6

bigha. The property in dispute is also part of

the same property.

4. That the plaintiff has always remained

ready and wiling to perform his part of contract.

The defendant did not come present to execute the

sale deed as per the terms and condition of the

agreement to sell.

5. That the ld. Lower court has dismissed

the suit of the plaintiff on some technical

ground order 17 rule 3 CPC. The execution of the

agreement to sell is prima facie to prove the

case of agreement. The defendant has not clearly

denied his signature on the agreement to sell.

6. That the defendant wants to sell the

property in dispute in favour of some third

person for which he has no right till the

decision of the appeal.

7. That there is a good prima facie case

and balance of convenience also lies in favour of

appellant.

8. That in case, the respondent/

defendant succeed in his evil motive, the

appellant/ plaintiff will suffer an irreparable

loss.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed

that the application may kindly be allowed and

respondent/ defendant be restrained not to sell

the property in dispute bearing comprised of

7

khasra No. 510 min 1-11 situated within the

revenue estate of village Cheema, Tehsil Dhuri,

till the decision of the appeal.

Nov. 2,2010 Submitted by:-

Rajinder Singh son of Teja

Singh R/o village Ram
Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, Distt.
Patiala.
Appellant

Through counsel