RSA No.4696 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4696 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Gora Singh .....Appellant v. Nachattar Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.S.Lucky, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13656-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.13657-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 28 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of according. C.M.No.13658-C of 2011 Application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to make good the deficiency in Court fee. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in Court fee. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.4696 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 23.7.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 RSA No.4696 of 2011(O&M) -2- against judgment and decree dated 8.2.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell regarding the land in dispute was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed by respondent- plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.11.2006 qua the land measuring 7 biswas in favour of the plaintiff and land measuring 6 biswas in favour of defendant no.2, out of which a sum of `1,14,695/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff and the remaining earnest money out of total amount of `2,13,000/- was paid by respondent-defendant no.2. Sale deed was to be executed by 31.1.2006. It was averred that appellant- defendant no.1 was always ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract and, however, though appellant-defendant no.1 executed sale deed in favour of respondent-defendant no.2 on 29.12.2006 and, however, he refused to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of respondent- plaintiff and hence, the present suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff. On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant no.1 has admitted execution of the agreement. However, he has taken the plea that only `1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. Further plea has been taken that though he executed sale deed in favour of respondent-defendant no.2 and, however, the sale deed could not be executed in favour of respondent- plaintiff as he was not ready with the balance sale consideration. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, suit RSA No.4696 of 2011(O&M) -3- filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for appellant-defendant no.1 that admittedly he was present on the date fixed, i.e., 29.12.2006 in the Tehsil compound and he also executed sale deed in favour of respondent-defendant no.2 and, however, as respondent-plaintiff was not ready with balance sale consideration and as he was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, sale deed could not be executed and hence, it is contended that as per terms and conditions of the agreement earnest money stands forfeited. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for appellant-defendant no.1. He has admitted that Bhag Singh, Municipal Commissioner was present in the office of Sub Registrar on that date. Bhag Singh, Municipal Commissioner was also the marginal witness of affidavit Ex.P2, placed on the file by respondent-plaintiff, which shows that he was also present in Tehsil Compound on that date. There is no dispute that 30.12.2006, 31.12.2006 and 1.1.2007 were holidays and hence, the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on 29.12.2006. Sufficient reasoning has been given by learned Courts below by not placing reliance upon assertion of present appellant-defendant no.1 that respondent-plaintiff was not ready with balance amount of `25,000/- only. It is proved that he has already parted with major portion of the sale consideration, i.e., `1,14,695/-. Hence, it cannot be said that he would not be having balance amount of `25,000/- only and that he was not willing and ready to perform his part of the contract. Rather, it has been rightly held RSA No.4696 of 2011(O&M) -4- that present appellant-defendant no.1 is not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 29.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge