IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.S. No. 75 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.07.2010. Lakhvinder Singh ... Plaintiff Versus Smt. Susheela Negi … Defendant Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the plaintiff : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate. For the defendant : Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. : This is a suit for specific performance of agreement and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the plaintiff. The allegations made by the plaintiff were that defendant had agreed to sell the flat as detailed in the plaint for a sum of Rs.18,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant on the date of agreement dated 28.5.2007, received Rs.7,50,000/- part payment. The time for the sale deed was initially upto 31.8.2007 and was extended further. The defendant on 30.8.2007 received a further sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in all. The plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs) towards the sale consideration. Hence, suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. The defendant was initially contesting the suit, but on subsequent date, the defendant made statement in Court admitting the claim of the plaintiff in full. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement is decreed as against the defendant, in view of the compromise embodied in OMP No. 343 of 2010, which compromise shall form a part of the decree sheet. The suit stands accordingly decreed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Court fee be refunded as per Rules. ( V.K. Ahuja ) July 22, 2010 Judge (BSS)