IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2231 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 24, 2008 Smt.Prem Rani ...... Appellant Versus Ved Parkash Sharma ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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 findings of the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of the agreement to sell which was executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The first argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the original agreement to sell was not produced in the Courts below. I fail to understand as to how this argument can be raised when the original agreement to sell would have been in possession of the appellant being the buyer. The second argument of learned counsel for the appellant is RSA No. 2231 of 2007 (O&M) -2- that the paper on which the agreement to sell was written was not shown to have been purchased in the name of the seller. Apart from the fact that this argument demolishes the first argument, the answer to this argument is also that since the original agreement would be in the possession of the appellant he would have to show as to in whose name the stamp paper was purchased. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the agreement to sell was duly proved and have decreed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that these findings of fact are either perverse or can be held to be not arising from the material on the record. Consequently I dismiss this appeal, however, with no order as to costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 24, 2008 sunita