Kaushalaya Bai and Others vs Harjeet Kumar and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Legal representatives of Ram Chand-defendant (appellant in lower appellate Court) since deceased have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.02.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioners for additional evidence in first appeal. Suit was filed by Dona Ram (since deceased and represented by respondents No. 1 to 3) and Chand Lal respondent No. 4 against Ram Chand (represented by petitioners) and Kaushalaya Bai petitioner No. 1 and Gurdial Chand respondent N. 5 herein for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.03.2001 allegedly executed in favour of said plaintiffs by Ram Chand predecessor of the petitioners. The said suit has been decreed for recovery of money instead of specific performance of agreement. Both parties have preferred first appeals against judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Ram Chand tried to transfer the suit land in favour of his minor sons Krishan Lal and Rakesh (petitioners No. 4 and 5 herein) by getting filed a suit against himself on behalf of petitioners No. 4 and 5 herein. However, Chand Lal and Dona Ram plaintiffs of the instant case moved application for impleading themselves as party to the said civil suit No. 96 of 2001. Thereupon the said suit was got dismissed in default on 27.07.2001. However, Ram Chand got filed another suit on 29.05.2001 against him for transfer of the suit land in favour of his wife Kaushalaya Bai petitioner No. 1 herein and got the said suit decreed on 28.07.2001 by way of consent decree. Chand Lal respondent No. 4 herein (plaintiff No. 2 in the instant suit) filed criminal complaint against Ram Chand, his wife and two sons alleging fraud etc. regarding transfer of the land by Ram Chand in favour of his wife. The said complaint has been dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa vide judgment dated 05.08.2010 Annexure P-4. Petitioners by way of additional evidence wanted to produce copy of judgment Annexure P-4 as additional evidence in first appeal. Said prayer of the petitioners had been declined by the lower appellate Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that judgment Annexure P-4 came into existence after decision of the trial Court and therefore, there is sufficient ground for permitting the petitioners to produce the said judgment by way of additional evidence in first appeal. The contention although attractive on first blush is completely devoid of merit. In the criminal complaint, the allegation was that the land was fraudulently transferred by Ram Chand original defendant No. 1 in favour of his wife to defraud the present plaintiffs and to frustrate the agreement dated 27.03.2001 in their favour. Learned Magistrate in judgment Annexure P-4 concluded that transfer of land by Ram Chand in favour of his wife does not amount to any criminal offence. In these circumstances, it is beyond comprehension as to how the said judgment is relevant for decision of the instant lis. The said judgment has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the instant case. Consequently application of petitioners for additional evidence has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly instant revision petition is dismissed in limine. CM No. 5506-CII of 2012 for interim stay is dismissed as infructuous.