Trial courts must adjudicate applications on their merits rather than dismiss them on procedural grounds, ensuring fair consideration of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

ARCHANA PURI, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by learned trial Court and order dated 17.03.2018 passed by learned Appellate Court, whereby, two separate applications filed under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the petitioners, for impounding of agreement to sell dated 09.10.2006 were dismissed.

2. For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as making appearance before learned trial Court.

3. The facts, as culled out from the paperbook, are hereby given:-

4. That, plaintiff-Rajinder Singh had filed a suit against defendants No.1 to 3 (who are petitioners before this Court) as well as defendant No.4- Gurnoor Singh, thereby, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.10.2006, with regard to the land measuring 358 Kanals 5½ Marlas out of the land measuring 656 Kanals 5 Marlas, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, copy whereof is Annexure P-2. As per the version set up by the plaintiff, the defendants, being owners of the aforesaid land, had entered into agreement to sell dated 09.10.2006 with the plaintiff for the sale of said land, on the terms and conditions, as mentioned therein. The rate of the land was settled as Rs.30 lakh per acre and they had received Rs.5 crore from the plaintiff, at the time of agreement to sell, as advance amount, out of the total sale consideration. The time for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed for 3½ years, from the date, when defendant No.4-Gurnoor Singh, would sign the agreement, as at the time of agreement, it was represented by defendants No.1 and 3 that defendant No.4 is in foreign country and they undertook that they will call Gurnoor Singh from the foreign country after 15.02.2007 and will get the documents completed.

5. Also, it is asserted that the possession of the total land covered by this agreement was handed over to the plaintiff, at the time of agreement. Further, also it is asserted in the plaint that the defendants had received various amounts from the plaintiff, the detail whereof is given in paragraph No.3 of the plaint and in total, they had received an amount of Rs.15,81,00,000/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.24,60,93,750/-.

6. Various sale deeds to the extent of land measuring 297 Kanals 19½ Marlas were executed, detail whereof is given in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. Besides the same, also it is asserted that on 26.11.2010, defendants No.1 and 2 were to execute and get registered other sale deeds, relating to which, the plaintiff had purchased the stamp papers for the value of Rs.3,80,800/-, upon which, four sale deeds, as detailed in paragraph No.5 of the plaint, were executed, but however, the same were not registered as defendant No.1, for himself and as attorney of defendant No.2, took time to get the same registered with the Sub-Registrar and these are lying un- registered, since the date of its execution i.e. 26.11.2010.

7. Despite request made by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 did not get the sale deed registered, nor defendants No.1 and 3 called upon defendant No.4- Gurnoor Singh, from the foreign country. Hence the suit.

8. Upon notice, defendants No.1 to 3 had made appearance and filed written statement, copy whereof is Annexure P-3, wherein, they asserted about defendant No.4-Gurnoor Singh, to have never agreed to sell his share, out of the land owned by him nor the agreement was signed by defendant No.4. As such, no terms of sale were ever concluded between the plaintiff and defendant No.4. Even, the plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands.

9. So far as, sale