RSA No. 3080 of 2009 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3080 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.8.2009 Palwinder Kaur ......Appellant Versus Harinderjit Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.2 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.6.2001, was decreed. The plaintiff has proved execution of the aforesaid agreement by examining himself as PW1; PW2 Narinder Kumar Kalra and PW3 – Gurjit Singh, attesting witnesses. On the basis of their testimony, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the agreement to sell dated 6.6.2001 stands executed. RSA No. 3080 of 2009 (O&M) (2) The defendants tendered their affidavits by way of affirmative evidence, but did not make themselves available for the purposes of cross- examination, though number of opportunities were availed by defendants for the said purpose. In fact, the learned first Appellate Court has recorded that 12 adjournments were availed by the defendants for the purposes of producing their witnesses for cross-examination, but still the defendants failed to produce their witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination. Therefore, the request of the defendants before the first Appellate Court to grant another opportunity to the defendants to produce their witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination was declined. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the observation of the learned first Appellate Court that 12 opportunities were granted to the appellants to lead evidence is incorrect. As a matter of fact only 7 opportunities were granted to the defendants. Therefore, one opportunity should have been granted to the defendants to produce their witnesses for the purposes of cross-examination. The present appeal has been filed with an application seeking condonation of 635 days delay in filing the same. It shows that the appellant was not only negligent while leading her evidence before the trial Court, but in prosecuting the lis thereafter as well. Such long delay in filing of appeal and the conduct of the appellant during the course of trial, does not warrant any indulgence in second appeal, especially when there is no evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the application seeking RSA No. 3080 of 2009 (O&M) (3) condonation of delay as also in the appeal as no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence, both, the application seeking condonation of delay as also the main appeal, are dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.8.2009 ds