AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. -- Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ahmedpur East whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.07.1994 passed by the Civil Judge, llnd Class, Ahmedpur East.
2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner on the basis of agreement to sell dated 31.12.1989 filed a suit for specific performance on 29.09.1991 against the predecessor of the respondents. The defendant appeared, filed the written statement and denied from the execution of the agreement. Learned Trial Court on 26.03.1992 framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.1994 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred by the predecessor of the respondents and same was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1998 by the Additional District Judge, Ahmedpur East. Hence this civil revision.
3. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that office has affixed objection sheet on this civil revision at the time of filing of the same that it is time- barred by 109 days. I have noticed that the judgment and decree is dated 19.11.1998 whereas the application for issuance of certified copies was moved on 11.12.1998, the copy was prepared on 12.12.1998 whereas it was delivered on 23.12.1998; for the first time this civil revision was filed under diary No. 98 on 15.02.1999 and office raised some objections. The record shows that it was ordered to be returned on the same day i.e. 15.02.1999 but the objection sheet is silent with regard to re- filing of the petition and it is evident that this petition was re-filed vide diary No. 492 on 9.6.1999; then also an objection was raised that it is time-bared by 109 days. I have calculated the time from the date of decision till the date of first filing of the revision petition excluding the time consumed in obtaining the certified copies. I have also excluded the time from the date of preparation till the date of delivery of certified copy i.e. 23.12.1998 as date of preparation was not intimated to the applicant, therefore, I am excluding the time from the date of filing of application till its delivery to the applicant. In this way the civil revision was filed after consuming 74 days of period of limitation, which is certainly within the period of limitation It was returned and re-filed on 9.06.1999. This consumption of time is governed by the High Court Rules and Orders and Limitation Act as well as Section 115, C.P.C. Is not applicable for this period.
4. According to Volume-V, Chapter-I, Part-A, Rule-9, Deputy Registrar has to specify the time for re- filing in the Objection Memorandum.
5. No doubt the petitioner has not advanced any explanation or made any application for condonation of this delay though the petitioner was bound to show that why he slept over the objection from 15.02.1999 to 09.06.1999 and has not re-filed the civil revision after removing the objections raised at serial Nos. 14, 22, 23 and 28 of the objection sheet within a reasonable time.
Though this is a grave negligence on the part of the petitioner but as I have observed that limitation provided under Section 115 of the C.P.C. Is not applicable in this regard and High Court Rules and Orders are applicable, therefore, this matter can be adjudged on the basis of High Court Rules and Orders. As I have observed that the office has not even mentioned in the Objection Sheet that in how many days the petitioner should re-file the revision petition after removing the objections as the proper place where the time for re-filing is to be written is blank, therefore, for this negligence of office, petitioner cannot be punished.
6. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case and have gone through the record.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he has produced evidence and has fully proved his case and the learned Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit but the learned first Appellate Court without any reason has set aside the well-reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.
8. When confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that how he terms ,Ex.P-1 to be an agreement when it is not signed by the petitioner/plaintiff? Learned counsel states that there is no necessity that the purchaser must sign the agreement. Learned counsel states that the signatures of- the vendor are sufficient to make it an agreement .
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court and argued that no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner. Further that there is no separate receipt for the payment of the amount and that the statement of the witnesses of the plaintiff are discrepant as they are not specific with regard to the payment of money and place of payment. Further that one witness states that the price of the land was agreed as Rs. 24,000/- whereas the other witness states that Rs. 23000/- were agreed as price of the land. Further the learned counsel states that it is improbable that Rs.
22,000/-have been shown to be paid and for the payment of Rs. 1000/- one year time has been fixed.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
11. There are material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses of the plaintiff which have also been noted by the learned first Appellate Court. Further that the agreement is not signed by the plaintiff himself. In this regard light can be taken from the case-law reported as 2010 SCM R 334.
I have a firm view in the light of above-referred judgment that the alleged agreement cannot be termed as an agreement in stricto senso, because without signature of the vendor it is not an agreement, therefore, it is not enforceable by law as it is not signed by the plaintiff. Further that the statement of DW-3 Finger Print Expert is material wherein it is stated that thumb-impressions on the agreement are not comparable as double thumb-impressions have been affixed, this document was produced by the plaintiff, therefore, he was bound to explain that why there are double thumb impressions of alleged vendor on this document. Therefore, in the above circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court and also failed to show any misreading or non-reading therein, therefore, this civil revision having no force is dismissed with costs throughout.
Civil revision .