Honble ARUN MADAN, J.–This revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC arises out of the order dated 15.5.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anta Distt. Baran in Suit No. 30/96 by which the said trial Court directed that the agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance had been filed could not be admitted in evidence. The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.6.1975 of agricultural land measuring 7/1 Bighas situated in Khasra No. 1163 which he had purchased from the defendant-respondents for sale consideration of Rs. 2000/-and in lieu of its payment, the respondents handed over its possession to the plaintiff. The recitals of the said agreement had provided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered for which defendant would extend all co-operation and the registration charges were to be borne by the plaintiff. In token of confirmation of the aforesaid agreement the possession of the land in question had also been handed over to the plaintiff. From the recitals of the said agreement, it is apparent that the Vendee had covenanted to agree to accompany the plaintiff for the purpose of effecting registration by execution of the sale deed as and when called upon to do so. The possession of the aforesaid land was handed over to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement itself i.e. on 9.6.1975. The agreement was executed on requisite Stamp Paper of Rs. 3/-. The original photostat copy of the said agreement has also been perused during the course of hearing which was made available by the learned counsel for the respondent at the time of hearing. The recitals of the agreement had provided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered as per his convenience.

(2). Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of the trial Court dated 15.5.1997 has contended that the aforesaid agreement of sale for the agricultural land is binding on the parties and it is not open to either party to deviate from the same. He has further contended that since the agreement itself specifically provided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered and which the defendant respondents had failed to execute, the last of such request was made on 30.9.1988; upon refusal of the non-petitioners to execute the same, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been in continuous possession of the property under the said agreement, he was entitled to have the specific performance of the said agreement and also entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered. It was then submitted that the entire sale consideration had already been paid and he was always ready and willing to have the sale deed registered by accompanying the defendant-respondents before the competent authority but the defendants had failed to carry out the corresponding obligation imposes upon them under the said agreement. It was further contended that the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 15.5.1997 had failed to take the aforesaid aspects of the matter into consideration and that the order is not sustainable for the following reasons:-

(a) that the impugned order passed by the trial court is absolutely illegal and contrary to facts on record as well as law and suffers from errors apparent on the face of record as well as errors of jurisdiction. The court below has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction;

(b) that the trial Court has erred in holding that the document was not property stamped and therefore, could not be admitted into evidence. The trial court has based its finding on the ground that the document cannot be termed to be an agreement of sale but was a sale deed and should have been stamped on the basis of the valuation of Rs. 2000/-. It i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document