RSA No. 955 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2900-C of 2008 and RSA No. 955 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Jagraj Singh ...... Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.N.S.Dandiwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 2900-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 697 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 955 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court modifying that of the trial court and ordering specific performance instead of refund of money. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in para 19 of RSA No. 955 of 2008 2 the judgment of the trial court it has been clearly held that the counsel for the respondent conceded that his client would be satisfied if money decree was passed. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has taken me through the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court where the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that there is no such statement of the counsel in writing available on the file of the trial court. In my opinion if this matter had been decided on agreed terms there was no occasion for the trial court to have passed a reasoned judgment. This circumstance also makes it improbable that the learned counsel made any such concession. Apart from this there is no evidence of any such concession having been made. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the courts below are result of misreading and mis- appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence? b) Whether the plaintiff has proved the execution of alleged agreement to sell dated 15.5.1998? c) Whether the plaintiff has proved that he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money against the sale price, if so, who prevented the respondent from getting the sale deed executed instead of waiting for such a long time? d) Whether a decree for specific performance can be passed against eh appellant when the trial court passed the decree for alternative relief? e) Whether the signature of the appellant obtained on blank paper has been given the shape of alleged RSA No. 955 of 2008 3 agreement to sell, if so,what is its effect? f) Whether the respondent has played fraud upon the appellant in collusion with his brothers? Learned counsel has only argued on question No. (d). All other questions No.(a),(b), ( c ), (e ) and (f) are pure questions of fact. In the circumstances I hold that the answer to question No (d) is against the appellant. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 24, 2009 sunita