R.S.A. No.470 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.470 of 2006 Date of Decision:29.09.2008 Gurcharan Singh .....Appellant Vs. Swaran Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that Swaran Singh- plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property. On 19.8.1998, the defendant- Gurcharan Singh aggreed to sell the same for Rs.1,20,000/- in favour of the former, who paid Rs.1 lac to the latter as earnest money on the aforesaid date. The defendant executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 21.12.1998. The plaintiff remained ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour though the defendant was not ready to perform his part of the contract. On 21.12.1998, the plaintiff remained present before the Office of Sub-Registrar, Phillaur with sufficient amount to get the sale deed executed, but the defendant did not turn up. On these allegations, the suit has been filed. In his written statement, the defendant has denied the receipt of Rs.1 lac on 19.8.1998 as well as the execution of the agreement. As alleged, it was a loan agreement and that the defendant has got only one residential house, i.e., property in suit. Lastly, it has been prayed that the R.S.A. No.470 of 2006 -2- suit may be dismissed. The following issues by the learned trial Court were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement? OPP 2. Whether defendant executed agreement to sell dated 19.8.1998 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff was and is always ready to perform the part of the contract? OPP 4. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi? OPD 6. Whether the site plan is incorrect? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.8.1998 vide his judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003. Feeling aggrieved therewith, Gurcharan Singh went up in appeal, which has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jalandahr vide his judgment and decree dated 5.4.2005. Feeling aggrieved therewith, Gurcharan Singh has preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and caution. Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant- appellant strenuously contended that both the Courts below have gravely erred in holding that the agreement to sell Ex.P.1 has been proved apart from the factum of payment of the alleged earnest money. As a matter R.S.A. No.470 of 2006 -3- of fact, no due opportunity was afforded to the defendant to adduce his evidence and that being so, injustice has been done to him. To tide over these submissions, Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate representing the respondent- plaintiff argued that sufficient opportunities were given to the defendant to lead his evidence but he did not take care at all and thus now he cannot be permitted to take the advantage of his own wrong. I have well considered the rival contentions. As is borne out from the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, due opportunity was given to the defendant to adduce his evidence but he did not take the steps to lead any evidence. As emanates from the record, even he himself did not have the courage to step into the witness box. On delving into the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and caution, it transpires that the same do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. More to the point, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Sequelly, this appeal is dismissed. September 29, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE