Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandip Kumar De FAT 311 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Rajib Hazra and Anr. Vs. Smt. Amita Chattopadhyay and Ors. For the appellants : Mr. Samiran Mandal, Mr. Agniva Mandal, Mr. Nitish Samanta, Mr. S. Mitra, Advs. For the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 : Mr. Subhas Chandra Dutta, Ms. Payel Paramanik, Advs. Heard on : September 14, 2026. Judgment on : September 14, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. On consent of parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing along with the connected application, since the conspectus of the same is short. 2. A suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, filed by the present appellants, was dismissed by the impugned judgement and decree. Several grounds were attributed by the learned Trial Judge for such dismissal. First, it was held that the agreement was an unregistered one. Secondly, the learned Trial Judge found that the same was not sufficiently stamped, nor did it contain the signature of any witnesses or identifier on any specific date. 3. It was also recorded by the learned Trial Judge, while dismissing the suit, that no specific boundary of the subject property of the agreement was given in the same. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that in a suit for specific performance, it is not required that the agreement sought to be performed is registered, by operation of the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act. Secondly, even if the agreement was deficient in stamp duty, it is submitted that the learned Trial Judge could have impounded the same if necessary. Again, learned counsel submits that there is no requirement in law for any attesting witness to sign an agreement. 5. Insofar as the boundaries of the property are concerned, learned counsel places reliance on the Schedule of the agreement to indicate that sufficient description of the subject property was given therein. 2 6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents contends that the suit itself was filed on November 17, 2020 whereas, in terms of the agreement itself, the sale deed was to be executed not before the month of April, 2021. By placing reliance on the relevant clauses of the agreement, learned counsel for the respondents argues that as per the same, a restaurant is situated on the ground floor of the building in question and in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement, after getting possession of the same on or before August 19, 2019, the second parties i.e. the present appellants, were to pay full consideration money and the first parties, that is, the respondents, were to execute the deed of sale and arrange for registration of the same. 7. Again, in Clause 9 of the agreement, it was stipulated that the first floor, which is licensed to one Sekhar Pal, was to be vacated on or before March, 2021 and after the said Sekhar Pal vacated the premises, the deed would be executed. 8. Thus, it is argued that the suit was premature, as rightly held by the learned Trial Judge. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment and the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge erred in law on several counts. 10. First, as rightly argued by the appellants, there is no necessity that an agreement is to be registered, even if otherwise compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act, for a suit to be filed on the 3 strength of the same for specific performance of contract. Such provision is found in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. 11. Insofar as the deficiency of stamp duty is concerned, it was always open for the learned Trial Judge to impound the agreement-in-question and direct the plaintiffs to put in the deficit stamp duty before deciding the suit. However, instead of adopting such course of action, the learned Trial Judge directly found the suit not to be maintainable on such ground. 12. Regarding the suit being premature, we find from the arguments of the parties that a letter was exhibited, authored by the respondents, which indicated that upon the plaintiffs/appellants seeking execution of the agreement by dint of the respondents performing their part of the contract, the respondents wrote a letter to the appellants claiming that the agreement itself was null and void, thus palpably refusing to perform the same. Hence, although the date for vacating the premises- in-question had not yet arrived when the suit was filed, by the defendants/respondents specifically refuting the very validity of the agreement itself and refusing to perform the same, sufficient cause of action arose for the filing of the suit on the premise that there was a refusal on the part of the defendants/respondents to perform their part of the said agreement. Hence, such issue is also decided in favour of the appellants. 13. As to the boundary of the subject property, we find from the Schedule of the agreement for sale that the contours of the property 4 which was the subject of the same have been sufficiently described therein as well as in the body of the main agreement. 14. Construed thus, we do not find any merit in the ground cited by the learned Trial Judge to the extent that the boundary was not specified. 15. Hence, FAT 311 of 2026 is partially allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned judgement and decree dated July 30, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court at Bankura, District – Bankura in Title Suit no. 102 of 2021 and remanding the same to the learned Trial Judge for a fresh adjudication of the suit on merits in the light of the observations made above. 16. We make it clear that the learned Trial Judge, during such fresh adjudication, will be at liberty to examine the evidence led by the parties on the germane issues. However, the issues which have already been turned down by us in the above observations shall not be reopened by the learned Trial Judge. 17. While doing so, the learned Trial Judge shall direct impoundment of the agreement-in-question as well as direct the plaintiffs, if deficiency in stamp duty is found, to make good such amount before proceeding with the trial. 18. As to the factual aspects of the matter and interpretation of the agreement, in the light of the arguments made by the parties, the learned Trial Judge shall resort to a full-fledged trial on evidence to come to her/his conclusions on the said issues. 19. CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of consequentially. 5 20. There will be no order is to costs. 21. It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the suit after remand as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view the long pendency of the lis, preferably within eight months from the date of communication of this judgment to the learned Trial Judge. 22. Interim orders, if any, stands vacated. 23. The parties will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim orders, if otherwise maintainable in law, before the Trial Court. 24. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.) AD-25 Ct No.16 (SSS) 6