IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1079 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 15.3.2010 Pal Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurmit Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.3240-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1079 of 2010 (O&M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.5.2001 was decreed. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the defendant-appellant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs. Execution of the agreement to sell in question and other documents regarding extension of time for execution of sale deed are not disputed. According to the appellant, these extensions were sought by the plaintiff- respondents as they could not arrange balance sale consideration. However, the Lower Appellate Court on reappraisal of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that dates for execution of sale deed were extended on the request of the defendant-appellant. The Lower Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff-respondents were present before the Sub Registrar, Mullana to show their readiness and willingness on the stipulated date. They also sent a notice to the defendant-appellant requesting him to RSA No.1079 of 2010(O&M) -2- appear before the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed. The Lower Appellate Court also found that there was no evidence that specific performance of the agreement will result in any hardship to the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. In fact there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be argued that the finding of fact with regard to the readiness and willingness of the parties for execution of the sale deed on the basis of agreement to sell in question can be found faulted with. No other point was urged. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 15, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE