IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10327 of 2008. Date of Decision: 19th March, 2009. Shri Asa Nand Dhingra ....Petitioner through Mr. R.L.Batta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate. Versus Central Information Commission & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate Mr. A.S.Chadha, Advocate & Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is aggrieved at the orders passed by the authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 including the order passed by the Central Information Commission whereby his prayer to direct the Income Tax Authorities to provide him a copy of an Agreement to Sell dated 27.10.2004 purported to have been executed by the petitioner along with his wife and others in favour of Smt. Rajni Gupta wife of Dr. Bharti Gupta, has been declined. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the pleadings are complete. Since there were vague and evasive averments with regard to the very existence of the document in dispute, vide order dated 2.2.2009, the Income Tax Authorities were directed to produce the records. In deference thereto, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 has produced a file which does contain a Photostat copy of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 27.10.2004 executed by Asa Nand Dhingra, Chetan Dass Dhingra, Smt. Alka Dhingra and Jugal Kishore Dhingra in favour of Mrs. Rajni Gupta. There is another undisputed Agreement to Sell between the parties dated 15.10.2004 and based upon the said agreement, respondent No. 4 has already filed a civil suit for Specific Performance which is pending in the Civil Courts at Faridabad. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit and as agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, it is neither desirable nor expedient for this Court to express any views with regard to [i] existence of the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 27.10.2004; [ii] validity of the said agreement or [iii] its relevancy in relation to the issues pending before the learned Civil Court. Suffice it to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to summon an official of the Income Tax Department as a witness who, in turn, is directed to produce the records which have been brought today and it is for the learned Civil Court then to consider as to whether or not the Agreement to Sell, purported to have been executed on 27.10.2004, a Photostat copy of which is available on the file of the Income Tax Department, has any relevance or bearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties. The impugned orders are modified to the above extent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. March 19, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE