SURESH CHANDER Vs. RAM DHARI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M.No.13086-C-II of 2006: C.M. is allowed. The documents attached as Annexures P-1 to P-3 are permitted to be taken on record. C.M. No. 13086-C-II of 2006: The present revision petition arises out of an order dated 4.4.2006 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tohana has stayed proceedings in the suit filed by the petitioner - plaintiff against the respondent.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of agricultural land which was allegedly entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. In the said suit, the defendant filed an application for staying of proceedings on the ground that he had also filed a suit wherein he had sought a declaration that the agreement to sell dated 30.12.2002 was illegal, based upon fraud and conspiracy. Suresh Kumar plaintiff in this suit was arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the said suit and shown as Proprietor, Balaji Trading Company, New Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the plaints in both the suits filed by the parties. The suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is a simplicitor suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.2002 wherein respondent is arrayed as defendant. On the other hand in the suit filed by the respondent Ram Dhari son of Ram Sarup it has been stated that the defendant No. 1 is doing the business of commission agent in the name and style of M/s Balaji Trading Company. In May, 2002 the plaintiff who is a farmer needed money to purchase fertilizers, seeds and spray and accordingly he asked for cash loan/credit of Rs. 35,000. Similarly, at the time of sowing of wheat crop when Shri Ram Dhari was in need of more money he again demanded Rs. 25,000 in cash from the petitioner. While granting these amounts by playing a fraud and a trick upon him he was made to sign some papers which ultimately turned out to be an agreement to sell. Otherwise he never intended to sell his land to the commission agent. On going through the pleadings in the suit, I am left with an impression that the respondent seems to be a poor and marginal farmer having a total holding of 3.5 acres of land. His contention that he never intended to sell his land and the agreement was entered into by deceiving him needs to be gone into by the Courts before the petitioner can be allowed to execute the agreement to sell.