IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1944 of 2007 Date of Decision : July 10, 2008 Bachan Singh ....Appellant Versus Ajit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.7.1992 was decreed for recovery of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur on 8.10.2002. Aggrieved of the declining of his prayer for specific performance of the agreement in question, the plaintiff/appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed with costs by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur on 1.12.2006. Both the learned Courts-below held that the agreement to sell Ex. P1 dated 21.7.1992 was duly executed by Ajit Singh through his attorney Roor Singh in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 24.9.1994. It was agreed between the parties Regular Second Appeal No. 1944 of 2007 that the land was to be sold at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per killa. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as earnest money. On the appointed day, i.e. 24.9.1994, the parties were required to execute the sale deed but the same was not done. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff-appellant could file suit for specific performance immediately. His plea that he was requested by attorney of Ajit Singh-defendant to execute the sale deed on some other day for the reason that he had an important work to do at Jalandhar on that day, is not borne from the records. The appellant has relied upon notice Ex. P.3 issued by him to the attorney of Ajit Singh-defendant to attend the office of Sub Registrar on 29.4.1997 and acknowledgment Ex. P4. That would not be sufficient to hold that the parties agreed to execute the sale deed subsequent to 24.9.1994. The appellant has also relied upon his affidavit Ex. P5 to show that he was present before the office of Sub Registrar on 29.4.1997 to get the sale deed executed. All this was happening after the stipulated date agreed to between the parties for executing the sale deed. It would, at the most, show that the appellant was present in the office of the Sub Registrar on 29.4.1997 but that did not mean that the parties had agreed to execute the sale deed on that date. In case the attorney of Ajit Singh had expressed his inability to execute the sale deed on 24.9.1994, the appellant could pUrsuade him to do the same within reasonable period thereafter. In case the attorney had refused to go ahead with the execution of the sale deed, the appellant could have issued notice to him. Nothing of this sort happened for the next two -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 1944 of 2007 years. It was finally on 3.4.1997 that the appellant was said to have issued notice Ex. P3. As it was the appellant himself who was at fault in not getting the sale deed executed from the attorney of Ajit Singh-defendant by the stipulated date, he forfeited his claim for getting relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell in question. However, he was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, i.e. double the amount of earnest money from defendant No.1 as the latter did nothing to inform the former about forfeiture of the amount of earnest money on account of non-execution of the sale deed. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts are not liable to be reversed in a second appeal. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 10, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 1944 of 2007 -4-