Regular Second Appeal No. 3114 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3114 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Order: 14.10.2009 Dhanpat ....Appellant Versus Surender Kumar ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Parveen Moudgil, Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). C.M.No.9432-C of 2009 Prayer in this application is for condonation of one day's delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of one day in filing the appeal, is condoned. C.M. application stands disposed of accordingly. R.S.A. No. 3114 of 2009 The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 18.07.2008 and 30.10.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon and the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing his appeal. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell 1/4th share of 10 kanals 12 marlas of land for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,15,500/-. The respondent alleged that Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant by cheque dated 29.06.2005 and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- paid in cash on 29.06.2005, duly acknowledged by receipt dated 29.06.2005. Despite the agreement to sell and the receipt of earnest Regular Second Appeal No. 3114 of 2009 (O&M) -2- money, the appellant refused to execute the agreement to sell, hence the suit. In response to the averments made in the plaint, the appellant denied the execution of the agreement to sell, the receipt of earnest money, the receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash on 29.06.2005 and asserted that he was not bound to execute any agreement to sell. After considering the matter in its entirety, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that as the execution of the agreement to sell, the receipt of money, the readiness and willingness of the respondent to perform his part of the contract stands proved, he can not be denied the relief of specific performance. It was also held that while deposing as DW1, the appellant has admitted his signatures on the agreement, and also admitted the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- by a cheque and having received Rs.4,00,000/- in cash. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2008, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that as only Rs.15,500/- remained to be paid, there was no reason for not executing the sale deed immediately. It is further argued that as the respondent has prayed for the alternative relief of refund of earnest money, the courts below should not have decreed the relief for specific performance. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant and express my inability to hold in favour of the appellant. The agreement to sell, the receipt of earnest money and the receipt of a further amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash, is admitted. The Regular Second Appeal No. 3114 of 2009 (O&M) -3- execution of the agreement stands proved by the deposition of the scribe, the deposition of an attesting witnesses and by the deposition of the respondent. The appellant has failed to advance any argument as would persuade this court to hold that the respondent is not entitled in to the relief of specific performance. The argument that as a sum of Rs.15,500/- remains to be paid, the sale deed should have been executed immediately, would not lead to an inference that the agreement to sell was not executed. The appellant has admitted his signatures on the agreement, has admitted the receipt of earnest money of Rs.2,00,000/- by cheque and has also admitted the receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash. In addition, the signatures of the appellant have been proved by examining a handwriting expert. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. October 14, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE