RSA No.546 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 546 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 07 , 2009 Love Dev ...... Appellant Versus Shyam Lal alias Radhey Shyam ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. M.K.Sood, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.9.97 in respect of 25% share in a shop measuring 13' x 38 ' situated in Faridabad. The case of the appellant was that the total value of the shop was assessed at Rs. 25 lacs and since the respondent had agreed to sell 25% share therein the value of the deal was Rs.6,25, 000/- out of which Rs. 1 lac had been paid by way of advance. The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether the finding of the learned lower Courts is not based on the facts of the case? RSA No.546 of 2009 (O&M) 2 2. Whether the learned Lower Courts wrongly appreciated the evidence on record? 3. Whether the appellant is entitled for decree for specific performance? 4. Whether learned Lower Courts erred in not allowing the appellant to exhibit the agreement? 5. Whether learned Lower Courts wrongly not read the agreement in the evidence being marked document whereas the application to pay penalty was allowed vide order dated 23.5.2007? Learned counsel for the appellant has primarily argued questions No.4 and 5. It is his case that originally the agreement to sell was executed on plain paper since it was evening time and stamp paper was not available and that the appellant had moved an application for compounding by paying 20% penalty and that the learned trial Court had passed an order dated 23.5.2007 wherein it had been categorically recorded that in case at the time of final consideration the agreement to sell was questioned only on the ground of insufficient stamping the appellant-plaintiff would be permitted to compound the same. He has thus argued that after passing this order both the Courts erred in law in rejecting the agreement on the ground that it was not properly stamped and has, therefore, not been exhibited. Learned counsel is, however, not in a position to deny that apart from the ground of insufficient stamping both the Courts have disbelieved the factum of the transaction by holding that the story set forward by the appellant does not inspire confidence. These concurrent findings of fact bind this Court since learned counsel has not been able to establish that they are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. In this view of the matter the fact that the Courts discarded the RSA No.546 of 2009 (O&M) 3 agreement for sale on the ground that it was not exhibited and not sufficiently stamped would not materially affect the decision of this case. Consequently holding the questions proposed above against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 07, 2009 sunita