AMRIT SACHDEV Vs. VARENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed by the plaintiff with the prayer to review the orders dated 9.1.2001 passed by the Registrar of this Court in compliance with the orders passed by the Court on 23.8.1999 under Section 33(2)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act. It is also prayed that the delay in the filing of the review application may be condoned. The defendant has filed replies to both these applications and has opposed the prayers made by the plaintiff.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications, briefly stated are, that the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of a receipt Exhibit P 1 pleading that the said receipt contained the terms of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such, the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement to sell embodied in the said receipt, is liable to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. A prayer for decree against the defendant to specifically perform the terms of the agreement as embodied in the said receipt was made. In his written statement, the defendant averred that the document styled as earnest money receipt" could not be termed as an agreement to sell between the parties. It was also pleaded in the alternative, in case it was held that the said document was an agreement to sell even then, the same was void and not enforceable as it was obtained by fraud upon the defendant.

(3.) Vide orders dated 23.8.1999, a learned Single Judge of this Court observed that there was some dispute about the sufficiency of the stamps on exhibit P 1 and as such, in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Registrar of this Court was directed to examine as to whether the said document was properly stamped or not. He was also directed to impound the document in case it was found to be insufficiently stamped.