R.S.A No. 2434 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2434 of 2008 Date of decision : July 30, 2009 Ram Niwas ...... Appellant (s) v. Amar Chand, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.50,000/- which was paid by him to the appellant as earnest money towards an agreement to sell. Counsel for the appellant has raised the following questions :- “ a) Whether there is no mis-appreciation or non- reading of evidence by the Courts below ? b) Whether law of estoppel is applicable against the plaintiff-respondent ? c) Whether the present suit for recovery is R.S.A No. 2434 of 2008 ::2:: maintainable ?” The only argument of counsel for the appellant is that even though he admitted the agreement to sell yet instead of paying him Rs.50,000/- as mentioned in the agreement, the respondent had paid him only Rs.5,000/- and, thus, the suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- could not have been decreed. He has relied upon the oral testimony to corroborate this argument. In my opinion, this argument is not tenable. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly bars admissibility of oral evidence which varies the terms of a written contract between the parties. Even otherwise, the Courts below have held that the agreement to sell was duly proved. In this view of the matter, the questions proposed do not arise. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 30, 2009. JUDGE `kk'