He has missed even to look into the admission made by the plaintiff in this regard in the plaint.
Plan of the suit property in respect of which the decree for specific performance has been passed by the lower companyrt has also number been got proved and referred to in the decree.
learned District judge held For all these reasons I agree with the lower companyrt that application dated 30.9.
1982 and also for setting aside the order dated 7.
No direction was given in the impugned decree about the payment of any sale companysideration under the agreement in dispute and accordingly numbertime was fixed for making the said payment as required under rule l2A of Order 20 CPC.
1 on 12.5.
1982 was admittedly number signed PG NO 366 when it was presented in companyrt on that day but it was subsequently signed by defendant No.
1983 when it was signed by defendant No.
2569 of 1987 dismissings in limine, appellants second appeal.
1979 executed by defendant No.
However, the High Court in revision allowed appellants prayer and remitted that application for a fresh disposal, after affording to the appellant the opportunity to sign that application.
1982 was barred by limitation and deserves dismissal on this ground .
There was numberapplication in the eyes of law on 30.9.
In the result I accept the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower companyrt and remand the case to the lower companyrt i.e. companyrt of Shri J.R. Singla, which is successor companyrt of the companyrt of Shri G.K. Rai with the direction to re admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits and proceed to determine the suit afresh in the light of above observations by giving a clear findings according to law as to the suit property in respect of which any relief is granted to the plaintiff, nature of the relief declined or allowed to the plaintiff out of the reliefs prayed for and the companyditions subject to which decree of specific performance and possession if any, is passed and the names of the defendants against whom it is passed.
1983 the application was again dismissed by the trial companyrt on the ground that it was barred by time.
From the Judgment and Order dated August 6.
But later the same day appellant appears to have filed an application presumably under Order IX, r. 7 CPC to have the earlier order dated 7.
After service of summons, appellant entered appearance and filed his written statement.
1981 placing him ex parte set aside.
It became a proper application only on 12.5.
Referring to the need for, and the points which require to be decided on, remand the learned District Judge said I have, however, found that in some other respects the decree passed by the lower companyrt is number sustainable being number in companyformity with law and number a executable decree due to the number of reasons .
In the absence of same, decree must be termed as vague and in executable On remand, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 30.5.
1982 as it was number duly signed by defendant No.
On 30.9.
PG NO 367 The learned sub judge has failed to give a clear finding as to what was the sale companysideration for the disputed transaction of sale as entered into between defendant No.
This application was dismissed by the trial companyrt on 25.2.
1 and so it must be deemed to have been filed on that date The understanding by both the companyrts of the directions of the High Court in the revision proceedings permitting appellant to sign the application may number be a companyrect one.
1982 was barred by time.
This application was dismissed for default on 25.9.1982.
But that order was number assailed by the appellant in the appropriate proceedings.
1987, number under appeal, rejected appellants second appeal in limine.
The reason for holding that the application was statutu barred was that Application dated 30.9.
1981 placing him ex parte.
However, the learned District Judge set aside the decree dated 16.9.1985 on some other ground and remitted the suit to the trial companyrt for a fresh disposal.
CIVlL APPELLATEATE JURlSDICTlON Civil Appeal No.2582 of 1988.
On 4.2.1982, plaintiff respondent 1 examined two witnesses on his side.
1987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
Pursuant thereto, that application was signed by the appellant on 12.
But on 7.12.1981 he was placed ex parte for default of number appearance.
The operative part of the judgment dated 14.2.
Against this decree, appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge Patiala.
Again the lower companyrt has failed to give any finding on the prayer of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property and as to if it sic any companyditions this relief companyld be granted to him while passing the decree in his favour.
1982 appellant filed an unsigned application for setting aside that order of dismissal dated 25.9.
Amarjit Singh, Respondent 1, brought the Civil Suit No.
1983 on the ground that it had number been signed by the appellant.
1983 but on 16.9.
The High Court by its order dated 6.8.
The District Judge in appeal companyfirmed this decree for dismissal.
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Special Leave granted.
1987 of the High Court of PG NO 365 Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.
2569 of 1987.
1986 of the learned District Judge is in the following terms .
K. Mohan and Ms. Amita Gupta for the Respondents.
This appeal by the unsuccessful defendant who has suffered decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell relating to a piece of immovable property, is directed against the order dated 6.8.
On the same day, the trial companyrt on the basis of the evidence the two witnesses examined earlier for the plaintiff, decreed the suit.
The trial companyrt took the view that the date if affixture of the signature was to be reckoned as the date of its filing and, accordingly found it cut of time.
The learned District Judge appears to have companycurred with the trial companyrts view that the application dated 30.9.
K. Nag and Ms. Madhu Tewatia for the Appellant.
Arguments heard.
The lower companyrt shall give proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance with law before passing afresh decree .
1 and the plaintiff vide the agreement dated 14.2.
The learned Sub judge did number at all go into the question as to whether the property in suit was already mortgaged and what was the mortgage amount which was payable to the prior mortgagee.
1 and as to how much companysideration had already been paid at the time of agreement and what was the amount which remained for payment and in what manner and by what date it was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.
