RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 12995-C of 2007 CM No. 8591-C of 2007 and RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19, 2010 Mange Ram ...... Appellant Versus Krishan ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. **** 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. 12995-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded this application is allowed. Appeal is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of. CM No. 8591-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded, delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M) 2 Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the act of the appellant-plaintiff is bona fide and the act of the respondent-plaintiff is mala fide in not getting execution of the sale deed on dated 8.2.2000 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Sonepat? ii)Whether the learned courts below have misread and misconstrued the specified admission of the appellant- defendant with regard to the execution of agreement to sell dated 9.2.1999 but receipt of only Rs.50,000/- as earnest money and not of Rs.2,50,000/-? iii)Whether in the receipt and agreement to sell dated 9.2.1999, figure of Rs.50,000/- has been interpolated with the figure of Rs. 2,50,000/- to defeat the ends of justice by the plaintiff? It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned Courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 19 , 2010 sunita