RSA No.3864 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3864 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.10.2009 Ramdutt ......Appellant Vs. Rajender Singh and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant challenges judgements and decrees dated 8.11.2007 and 8.9.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and the District Judge, Narnaul, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no.1 and dismissing his appeal. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 17.4.2003, alleging that defendant no.1/appellant had agreed to sell 8 kanals of land for a total consideration of Rs.2,75,000/-. It was further pleaded that Rs.80,000/- was paid to the appellant as earnest money and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.1,95,000/- would be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 15.11.2003. It was further averred that despite requests and service of a notice, the appellant did not come forward to RSA No.3864 of 2009 2 execute the sale deed. In response, the appellant filed a written statement, alleging that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 2% p.m. and in acknowledgment executed a writing on 15.11.2002 It was alleged that apparently this writing had been altered into an agreement to sell at the behest of Sh.Desh Raj Yadav, Advocate, who is relative of respondent no.1. The trial court after considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed decreed the suit by holding that the agreement to sell scribed by Sh.Desj Raj Yadav, Advocate has been proved by the attesting witnesses and respondent no.1 has proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 8.9.2009 the District Judge, Narnaul, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent no.1 has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is submitted that the legal notice served upon the appellant does not refer to any date for execution of the sale deed. It was further argued that the agreement has been scribed by Sh.Desh Raj Yadav, Advocate, who also issued the legal notice. An Advocate cannot scribe an agreement and thereafter serve a legal notice of the agreement he has scribed. It is submitted that in view of the errors committed by the courts below, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration :- “1. Whether both the courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence properly ? 2. Whether the decree of the specific performance can be granted without proving readiness and willingness of RSA No.3864 of 2009 3 the contract by the plaintiff in the present case ? 3. Whether a same person can be scriber of the agreement and also can act as an advocate ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of the specific performance ? I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgements, considered the arguments raised and appraised the substantial questions of law framed by the appellant but express my inability to accede to the argument that the courts below have committed any error, as would raise any substantial question of law. As referred to herein above, the agreement has been proved by its scribe Sh.Desh Raj Yadav, Advocate and the attesting witnesses. They have deposed in unison about the execution of the agreement to sell by the appellant. The receipt of earnest money has also been proved, as has the service of a legal notice calling upon the appellant to execute the sale deed. The argument that an Advocate, who scribes an agreement cannot serve a legal notice for its compliance, has no basis in law. Counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to any statutory provision, rule or regulation that would bar a counsel from scribing a document and thereafter serving a legal notice. As regards the argument that respondent no.1 was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, suffice it to say that on the basis of the evidence adduced by respondent no.1, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that respondent no.1 has proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. RSA No.3864 of 2009 4 In view of what has been stated herein above, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 28.10.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE