VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the learned Courts below vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance for enforcement of agreement of sale dated 11.7.2005. It has been pleaded that the defendant respondent had entered into an agreement of sale of land for total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. six lacs only) out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. two lacs only) was paid as earnest money and the date for execution of the sale-deed was fixed as 26.12.2005. It was also the case of the plaintiff that sale-deed was to be executed on furnishing of "no dues certificate" from the Bank but as the defendant failed to produce the "no dues certificate", the date of execution of agreement was extended. It was the case of the plaintiff petitioner that he was always willing to perform his part of contract. Along with the suit for specific performance an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with State Government 151 C.P.C. was moved seeking restraint order against the defendant from dispossessing him from the land in dispute. It was claimed that at the time of execution of the agreement of sale the possession was handed over to the plaintiff petitioner by the defendant though no mention of this was made, in the agreement of sale. It was the case of the plaintiff petitioner that at the time of extension of time it was incorporated therein that the possession of the land has been given to the petitioner plaintiff. The said endorsement was not signed by the defendant but by two of the attesting witnesses, who had witnessed the agreement of sale.
(3.) THE learned Courts below have prima facie come to the conclusion that revenue record did not show that the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff petitioner and the learned Courts below also did not believe that the possession was handed over as mentioned in the endorsement at the time of alleged extension of time as no such stipulation was made in the agreement of sale. Though, no specific reference was made to the endorsement by the learned Courts below while coming to this conclusion.;