RSA No.2526 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2526 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:27.09.2010 Baj Singh ....appellant Versus Narayan Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement in question has been decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the appellant agreed to sell the suit land and executed an agreement on 21.06.2002 with the plaintiff-respondent and received an amount of Rs.30,000/- as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. The sale deed was to executed on or before 20.06.2003 on receipt of balance sale consideration. On 20.06.2003, the appellant showed his inability to execute the sale deed and requested for extension of the date for execution. So, with the consent of the parties, the time was extended up to 20.06.2004 and a writing to this effect was made on the backside of the agreement to sell in the presence RSA No.2526 of 2010(O & M) 2 of witnesses and the appellant received further a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff towards the earnest money. Despite the fact that plaintiff- respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, appellant failed to turn up and execute the sale deed. Upon notice, the appellant contested the suit by filing written statement and raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the execution of the agreement to sell in question was denied and a specific stand was taken that the aforesaid agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document to deprive the defendant-appellant of his valuable rights. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the oral as well documentary evidence led by both the parties , the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Appeal filed by the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court to challenge the aforesaid decree of the trial Court, was also dismissed. Still not satisfied, the defendant has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgement and decrees of the courts below. While upholding the judgement of the trial Court, the Lower Appellate Court has found that agreement to sell and the extension of time in question stood duly proved from the testimony of marginal witnesses. It was also found by the courts below that despite taking a specific stand that agreement to sell in question was a forged and fabricated document, the appellant has not produced any evidence on record to support his assertion, except denying the signatures on the agreement to sell in question. No material evidence has been pointed out to this court, which is relevant and was ignored by the courts below while recording concurrent findings against the appellant. RSA No.2526 of 2010(O & M) 3 In this view of the matter, no fault can be found in the findings recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.09.2010 neenu