R.S.A No. 835 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.2311-C of 2010 and R.S.A No. 835 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : February 22, 2010 Gurdev Singh ...... Appellant (s) v. Sukhwinder Kaur and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.L.Sharma, 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.2311-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 90 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.835 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court partly allowing the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant and converting the decree for specific performance into a decree for recovery of the amount. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific R.S.A No. 835 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 23.6.1998. Both the Courts have on fact found that respondent No.1 was able to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell. The trial Court, as mentioned above, passed a decree for specific performance. The lower appellate Court, however, on a conspectus of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell was executed as security for a loan and, treating it to be a money transaction, granted alternative relief of refund of the amount mentioned in the agreement to sell. The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the plaintiff has proved the payment of earnest money ofRs.3,51,000/- as required under the law of evidence ? b) Whether the plaintiff has proved the payment earnest money of Rs.3,51,000/- without disclosing the source of its withdrawal and without disclosing the name of agency to whom the crops were sold ? c) Whether the decree for recovery of Rs.3,70,275/- could be sustainable on the principle interest of Rs.16,000/- advanced on 25.11.1988 by allowing the interest @ 36% which is against the provisions of Section 4 of the Interest Act, 1978 ?” It would be seen that questions No. (a) and (b) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the appellant was not liable to pay a sum of Rs.3.51 lacs or that the findings recorded on these questions are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse R.S.A No. 835 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards question (c), once the agreement to sell is held to be duly proved, this question does not arise. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'