JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. 1. Defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28th November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 105/2005 (120/2005) whereby, the learned trial Judge has partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of the agreement and injunction. However, the prayer seeking injunction against the appellant-defendant for not dispossessing the plaintiff was rejected. 2. Briefly, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 10th May, 2005 seeking specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction stating that the defendant executed an agreement to sale on 15th September, 1996 in favour of the plaintiff to sell agricultural land of Khasra No. 131 comprising of 4 bighas situated in village Bhanpur Khurd. The total sale amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant and the possession of the agricultural land was also handed over by defendant to him. As the said land was already mortgaged in favour of Bank, the defendant assured to get the sale-deed registered as soon as it is redeemed from the mortgage. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The said land was redeemed from mortgage on 31st March, 2005 but the defendant did not execute the sale-deed in favour of plaintiff. Registered notice was sent by the plaintiff through his Advocate on 5th May, 2005 which was received by the defendant but he did not execute the sale-deed. Hence, the suit was filed. 3. In written statement, defendant denied these facts narrated in the plaint. Defendant stated that the plaintiff got one stamp paper signed from him and his sons on the pretext of getting loan sanctioned on his agricultural land and forged the said agreement upon that stamp paper. Defendant and his sons are illiterate and the plaintiff has taken advantage of this fact. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- "(1) Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sale on 15th September, 1996 to sell the disputed property for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and handed over the possession thereof after receiving the said amount ? 4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- "(1) Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sale on 15th September, 1996 to sell the disputed property for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and handed over the possession thereof after receiving the said amount ? (2) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the contract ? (3) Whether the plaintiff is in cultivatory possession over the disputed property ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from transferring the disputed property to any other person and also from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom ? (4-A) Whether the agreement dated 15th September, 1996 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be a basis for suit being inadequately stamped ? (5) Relief ?" 5. During trial, plaintiff PW-1 Nanag Ram was examined. PW-2 Kailash Narayan Sharma, scribe of the sale agreement and PW-3 Ramchandra Sharma, witness thereof were also got examined. Certain documents Ex. 1 to Ex. 11 were also produced in evidence. 6. None of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendant. 7. After concluding the trial, learned trial Court proceeded to decide the suit. Issues No. 1, 2 and 4-A were decided in favour of the plaintiff; whereas, issue No. 3 was decided against him on the ground that his possession was not found proved on the disputed property. Issue No. 4 was partly decided in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of issuance of the permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him to transfer the disputed property to any third party. But so far as the injunction restraining defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed property is concerned, the same was refused as the plaintiff was not found in possession over it. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant has stated that the counsel appearing for the defendant before the trial Court did not inform the defendant properly and thus, the defendant was precluded from availing the opportunity of producing the witnesses. The defendant and his sons were illiterate and not vigilant and alert enough to protect their interests; otherwise, there was no reason for not producing any evidence on their behalf. He has emphatically contended that the client should not be made to suffer on account of the negligence of his Advocate. The defendant and his sons were illiterate and not vigilant and alert enough to protect their interests; otherwise, there was no reason for not producing any evidence on their behalf. He has emphatically contended that the client should not be made to suffer on account of the negligence of his Advocate. Hence, he has prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial Court for giving proper opportunity to the appellant-defendant to produce his evidence and to decide the case afresh. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff has argued that more than required opportunities were granted by the learned trial Court to the defendant-appellant for producing his evidence. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence firstly on 5th February, 2007 and ultimately, it was fixed for final arguments on 21st November, 2007. Thus, a period of more than 9 months was allowed to the defendant to produce his evidence. The matter was closely pursued and conducted by the defendant. Hence, it cannot be said that he could not produce the evidence because of non-communication/inaction on the part of his counsel. 10. In this regard, I have perused the order sheets of the learned trial Court in order to ascertain whether the counsel engaged by the defendant properly conducted the case on his behalf and whether on account of his slackness, interests of the defendant have been properly protected or not ? As soon as the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, counsel for the defendant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC for getting the statements of defendant recorded on Commissioner which was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 7th April, 2007. Again on 26th May, 2007, another application was filed by the counsel for defendant to examine other witnesses while exempting defendant Narayan Singh from being examined. This application was also allowed by learned trial Court. On the same day, another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed which was rejected vide order dated 22nd September, 2007. Defendant's evidence was closed on 9th October, 2007. Again, an application was filed on 22nd October, 2007 to open the defendant's evidence which was rejected. This application was also allowed by learned trial Court. On the same day, another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed which was rejected vide order dated 22nd September, 2007. Defendant's evidence was closed on 9th October, 2007. Again, an application was filed on 22nd October, 2007 to open the defendant's evidence which was rejected. Another application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the counsel for defendant on 29th October, 2007 to open the defendant's evidence which was also rejected by a detailed order and the matter was fixed for final arguments. 11. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that learned counsel appearing for defendant had been negligent in conducting the case. However, the defendant has failed in his duty to adduce his evidence during trial. Further, despite the fact that there was no evidence produced by the defendant, learned trial Court has critically examined the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and some of the issues have been decided against him which shows that non-production of the evidence by the defendant has not swayed away learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Learned trial Court has decided all the issues properly in consonance with the evidence produced by the plaintiff and thus, the prayer made by learned counsel for appellant to remand the case to trial Court for deciding it afresh after giving further opportunity to the defendant for producing evidence cannot be allowed. 12. In light of the arguments advanced by both the sides and whatever has been observed hereinabove by this Court, the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court in regard to issues were examined. Issues No. 1 and 4-A have been jointly decided by the learned trial Court. In so far as the objection regarding insufficiency of the stamp duty annexed on the agreement dated 5th September, 1996 is concerned, learned trial Court has concluded that on the relevant date i.e. 15th September, 1996, the agreement to sale of immovable property was required to be stamped with the stamp worth Rs. 10/- only. On perusal of the agreement (Ex. 1), it has been found that it is stamped with stamp duty of Rs. 10/-. So, the objection has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 13. As regards the execution of sale agreement (Ex. 10/- only. On perusal of the agreement (Ex. 1), it has been found that it is stamped with stamp duty of Rs. 10/-. So, the objection has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. 13. As regards the execution of sale agreement (Ex. 1) in respect of disputed property, the evidence produced by PW-1 Nanag Ram, scribe of the agreement PW-2 Kailash Narayan and witness PW-3 Ramchandra Sharma have corroborated that the said sale agreement was executed between the parties. Of course, this fact has been admitted by the witnesses during cross-examination that PW-2 Kailash and PW-3 Ramchandra are real brothers and plaintiff - Nanag Ram is their uncle but this does not shake the veracity of the statements as nothing adverse has come out during their cross-examination regarding execution of the said sale agreement. Moreover, as per the plea taken by the defendant/appellant, signatures of himself and his sons on the sale agreement have been admitted but it has been stated that these signatures were obtained on the pretext of getting some agricultural loan sanctioned on the said land. But recital of sale agreement (Ex. 1) clearly mentions that loan was already sanctioned on this land from Land Development Bank. Thus, the plea raised by the defendant does not appeal to logic. It is a point of common observation that when the loan had already been advanced on the land, the second loan could not be raised. 14. Further, this plea was required to be supported by the evidence that the sale agreement was got signed on the pretext of sanction of the loan, but no such evidence has been adduced by the defendant. Neither such suggestion has been put to the plaintiff during his cross-examination. No fact has been mentioned even in the written statement that any FIR was ever lodged by the defendant against the plaintiff for deceitfully getting the sale agreement signed. All these aspects have been elaborately considered by the learned trial Court. Hence, the inference drawn by the learned trial Court in respect of these issues appears to be perfect and in accordance with the evidence placed on record. Thus, no infirmity is found in respect of the inference drawn by the learned trial Court as regards these issues. 15. All these aspects have been elaborately considered by the learned trial Court. Hence, the inference drawn by the learned trial Court in respect of these issues appears to be perfect and in accordance with the evidence placed on record. Thus, no infirmity is found in respect of the inference drawn by the learned trial Court as regards these issues. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has vehemently argued on issue No. 2 that since 15th September, 1996, when the sale agreement was allegedly executed, the plaintiff did not take any step to get the sale-deed registered. But this plea does not appear to be convincing in light of the condition mentioned in Ex. 1. As per the condition mentioned in the sale agreement (Ex. 1), defendant was obliged to get the sale-deed registered only after redemption of the land from Bank. Soon after redemption of the land from Bank mortgage which took place on 31st March, 2005 as is evident on perusal of the entry made in Jamabandi (Ex. 2), a legal notice appears to have been given by the plaintiff on 5th May, 2005 to defendant for getting the sale-deed registered in his favour. Copy of such notice (Ex. 3) as also postal receipt (Ex. 4) have been produced in evidence. Inference drawn by the learned trial Court regarding receipt of the said legal notice by defendant appears to be convincing because postal receipt (Ex. 4) bears the same address of the defendant as has been written by him in the affidavit annexed with the written statement. No evidence has been produced by the defendant that such notice was never received by him. In view of above, inference drawn by the learned trial Court on issue No. 2 also appears to be proper. 16. Issue No. 3 has been decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the appellant. No cross-objection has been preferred by the plaintiff-respondent in this regard. Hence, it does not need to be discussed in this appeal. 17. Issue No. 4 has been partially decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and partially in favour of the appellant/defendant. As the fact of handing over the possession of the disputed property has not been mentioned in the agreement (Ex. Hence, it does not need to be discussed in this appeal. 17. Issue No. 4 has been partially decided by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and partially in favour of the appellant/defendant. As the fact of handing over the possession of the disputed property has not been mentioned in the agreement (Ex. 1), hence the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property has not been found proved by the learned trial Court and accordingly, the prayer in respect of permanent injunction for not dispossessing the plaintiff from the disputed property has not been granted. However, in view of the sale agreement (Ex. 1), learned trial Court has partially decided the issue No. 4 in favour of the plaintiff, and rightly so, restraining the defendant to alienate this land to any third party. The conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is perfectly justified. 18. In view of the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in respect of above issues, relief has been granted in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by partially allowing the suit. There appears no infirmity or lacuna in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court and thus, the appeal deserves to fail. 19. In view of the above discussions, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed while upholding the judgment and decree dated 28th November, 2007.