Dear Sirs, At the outset my sincere apologies to the advocates on LCI Panel. A dew days ago I was typing out a query for resolution, when I received a call from my relative that my auntie residing at a distance of 300kms from my place of residence had passed away. I had to leave immedtaely for that place and in a hurry submitted my half typed query. I am sorry for the faux pass and the inconvenience caused to the advocates. I am retyping the query in full again with a request to kindly provide solution for my friend.:- My friend filed a suit for specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale in his favour in respect of the house in which he has been residing from the days of his grandfather (about 70 years) against his vendor- landlord who had executed the same in his favour in 1986 agreeing to sell the house to my friend on certain terms. However, due to increase in land prices (before the time of proposed sale deed) the vendor started demanding more money from my friend to execute the sale deed, which he refused to pay. The vendor then started negotiating with others for sale of the house. Upon coming to know that the vendor was planning to enter into an agreement with another person, my friend met that person, told him about his sale agreement, showed it to him and requested him not to purchase the house. He further met the vendor and warned him not to sell the house to anybody and give scope for litigation. Inspite of these developments, the vendor executed the sale deed of the house in favour of the second purchaser who had knowkedge of the previous agreement. Upon this, my friend filed the suit in 1989, where the vendor was arrayed as 1st Defendant and the subsequent purchaser as 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant had pleaded that he had not executed agreement in plaintiff's favour and his signature was forged. The 2nd defendant had only claimed that he was bonafide purhaser without knowledge of the earlier agreement. Curiously enough, both the defendants had not pleaded in their defence that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perfom his part of the contract nor was the plaintiff cross examined on that aspect. The trial court decreed the suit in 1999 in my friend's favour holding that my friend had proved the execution of the sale agreement in his favour by 1st defendant. It also held that signatures of the vendor were not forged. It further held that he had proved that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The trial court held that 2nd defendant is not a bonafide purchaser as he had admitted in his cross examination that he was aware of my friend's agreement. It directed the 1st defendant to receive the balance of the sale consideration & directed both defendants to jointly execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, both defendants preferred a common RFA to the H.C. The H.C. while deciding the RFA in 2010 held that the plaintiff had proved agreement as well as the signatures of 1st defendant on the agreement. It however held that the plaintiff had not proved his readiness & willingness to perform his part of the contract and set aside the decree of the trial court and directed the 1st defendant to refund the part consideration received with interest at18% from the date of filing of suit. It however did not decide the issue whether the 2nd defendant is a bonafide purchaser. My friend informs me that so far the 1st defendant has not refunded the earnest money with interest as directed by the H.C.nor has he deposited the same in the trial court or in the High Court. Aggrieved, my friend preferred an SLP in 2010 within time. However for several years the defects in SLP were not cured by his advocate for reasons best known to that advocate. Inspite of regular phone calls, registered letters and emails, the advocate slept over the matter, putting the interests of my friend in jeopardy and filed an application for condonation of delay in refiling only in 2015. The same was dismissed in chambers of the judge. This dismissal was not brought to the notice of my friend by his advocate, which in my opinion is professional negligence. My friend came to know of the dismissal of his SLP when the 2nd defendant produced the order of dismissal of the SLP in an eviction petition filed by him against my friend. Upon coming to know of this, my friend appointed another advocate and filed a Review Petition with an I.A.for open court hearing. He had pleaded that he was innocent litigant and unaware of S.C.Rules. That his advocate was negligent in the matter and had produced all his letters/emails to show that he was diligent. The R.P. came to be dismissed. He filed a Curative Petition, which also came to be dismised like any other C.P. My friend had paid his advocate all the fees at the time of filing of SLP and even thereafter. (1) I would like to know if the doors of the Supreme Court are closed to my friend in the matter. Is there any procedure in the S.C. whereby he could plead and highlight that the SLP was wrongly dismissed not because of his negligence but because of the negligence of his advocate, in order to get his SLP heard on merits (2) Assuming for a moment that the doors of the S.C. are closed to my friend, can he now file a suit against the 2nd defendant (subsequent purchaser) challenging the sale deed executed by the vendor in his favour as being null and void in view of the trial court's ruling that the sale deed is void as he is not a bonafide purchaser. Whether such a suit, if could be filed, gets time barred by limitation.?
My friend is facing an eviction petition in the trial court filed by the 2nd defendant and the same is posted for cross examination of the petitioner. Can the eviction petition be stayed before the S.C. or before the trial court.?
