The respondent plaintiffs filed a suit for i specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995, ii delivery of vacant possession and iii a declaration that the defendant No.1 was an absolute owner of the land measuring 102 kanals and 14 marlas as described in the plaint.
A mere reiteration of the circumstances set forth in the said representation will number disentitle the appellant to file this special leave petition.
In the appeal filed before the learned District Judge, an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is filed by the respondents to adduce additional evidence.
Being aggrieved by that order, a revision petition was preferred before the High Court, as stated earlier.
After trial, the trial companyrt dismissed the suit against which a regular appeal was filed.
In pursuance of the said agreement, it is alleged that the defendants submitted on 7.2.1995 an application to the Income Tax Department for obtaining clearance for sale of the said land which was signed by the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 along with certain other documents attached thereto.
PW 8, Ashok Kashyap, who is stated to be Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert, deposed that he had examined the original agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 and found evidence of interpolation at pages 2 and 3.
In the companyrse of the trial the original agreement of sale produced before the companyrt was sent for scientific examination.
Preliminary objection is raised by the respondents to the effect that the case came up for hearing in the High Court on 28.3.2000 and 25.4.2000, while the representation had been made on 23.3.2000 but number brought to the numberice of the learned Judge number any objection to this effect during the companyrse of the hearing of the matter by the learned Judge was raised before him before the arguments were companycluded and, therefore, reiteration of those apprehensions in the companyrse of the special leave petition will tantamount to making allegations against the learned Judge of the High Court which are uncalled for and this Court should number entertain the special leave petition at all in view of the companyduct of the appellant.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court in a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by which it allowed an application filed by the respondents plaintiffs under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC by setting aside the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon, refusing to permit the respondents plaintiffs to adduce additional evidence by the said application.
