IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1768 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.5.2010 Padam Parkash. ....... Appellant. Versus Ashok Kumar. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.5426-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.1768 of 2010 & C.M.No.5427-C of 2010 This is plaintiff's appeal impugning judgments and decrees dated 18.9.2008 and 20.2.2010 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which his suit and appeal have been dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for possession (symbolic) by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.10.2000 vide which R.S.A. No. 1768 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... the defendant-respondent agreed to sell the property which was described therein for a total sum of Rs.90,000/-. It was pleaded that the last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 15.4.2001, but since that day was a holiday, he presented himself before the Sub Registrar, Jagadhri on 16.4.2001, but the respondent did not appear to perform his part of contract. The respondent, upon notice, appeared and contested the suit. He denied the execution of the agreement in question. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement in question and, therefore, dismissed the suit as well as the appeal. In this regular second appeal, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside, but if the reasoning contained in the impugned judgments are to be seen, then I find that the contention raised by him is without any merit. Agreement, Exhibit P1, contemplates alienation of two properties for a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The Courts below noticed that at one place, there was a recital therein that the last date for registration is 15.4.2001, but immediately thereafter it is mentioned that in respect of property in abadi, an agreement with regard to full amount will be written later. The value of both the properties have not been mentioned separately nor does it contain any further clauses. The plaintiff himself while appearing as PW2, in his examination-in-chief, referred to the property in abadi by describing it to contain a room, a kitchen, stair-case, water tap and R.S.A. No. 1768 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... sehan. This is the property which has been mentioned in the agreement which he seeks to enforce, but in the plaint, he has described the property as a shop. There is, thus, clear ambiguity about the property which was the subject-matter of any agreement and in such an eventuality, even if such an agreement was to be accepted, it was incapable of being enforced. There is, thus, no infirmity in the impugned judgments and the appeal is dismissed being without any merit. C.M.No.5427-C of 2010, which is for staying operation of the impugned judgments during the pendency of the appeal is also dismissed in view of the above. May 7,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge