R.S.A No. 2020 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M Nos. 5957-58C of 2009 and R.S.A No. 2020 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : September 03, 2009 Nanak Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Joginder Kaur and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) C.M No.5957-C of 2009 For the reasons stated, C.M is allowed and delay of 118 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2020 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the defendant (since deceased represented through his L.Rs (respondents) for specific performance. The following questions have been proposed : “i) Whether the judgment and decree is against the R.S.A No. 2020 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: record ? ii) Whether the learned lower appellate Court should have decided the appeal issue-wise ? iii) Whether the learned lower Courts misread the evidence on the record ?” It would be seen that questions No. (i) and (iii) are pure questions of fact. Both the Courts have held on facts that the defendant was fully entitled to get the decree for specific performance. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that findings recorded by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Once the entitlement of the defendant for specific performance is upheld, question No.(ii) is rendered otiose. Consequently, this appeal, as also the application for stay are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'