-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 2542 of 2008. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 07, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 2542 of 2008. Nathu Ram ... Appellant VERSUS Harminder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Nathu Ram (plaintiff-appellant) is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that the agreement dated 16.2.2002 executed by him (plaintiff) through his power of attorney holder for the purchase of plot -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 2542 of 2008. No.56 measuring 33' x 51-1/2' stood cancelled and the earnest money paid by the defendants-respondents to the plaintiff-appellant stood forfeited as the defendants-appellants had no right to execute the agreement through the court was dismissed. I have heard Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate, appearing for the the plaintiff-appellant and Mr.Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing for the defendants-respondents and have perused the impugned judgments. Execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.2.2002 between the attorney of the plaintiff and the defendants, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell the plot in dispute to the defendants, is not disputed by the plaintiff. In all, the plaintiff had received Rs.85,000/- from the defendants. The basic plea of the plaintiff, as raised in the plaint, was that the defendants were not having the balance sale consideration to get the sale deed executed. The plot in dispute, mentioned above, was agreed to be sold by the plaintiff to the defendants at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per square yards. Both the Courts below have held that as per the Notification (Exhibit D.10), the transferor i.e the plaintiff was required to obtain `No Objection Certificate' from the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, or an officer authorized by him in this behalf for the registration of the sale deed for the plot in question, which the plaintiff failed to do. Indu Bala (P.W.11), the attorney of the plaintiff, admitted in her cross- examination that she had not obtained `No Objection Certificate' -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 2542 of 2008. from the competent authority. In this view of the matter, both the Courts below have held that the defendants cannot be said to be not ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said finding of the Courts below is based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 07, 2011. JUDGE ak