RSA No. 3917 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3917 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: April 19, 2010 Baldev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Trilok Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the 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. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the respondents for return of earnest money in place of specific performance. It is noteworthy that the agreement and receipt of money was accepted by the appellant-defendant. Both the Courts on a conspectus of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that though the respondents were not entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell yet they were entitled for recovery of the earnest money since it was not on account of their fault that the sale deed could not be executed. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were not duty RSA No. 3917 of 2009(O&M) 2 bound to perform their part of agreement on the stipulated date? ii)Whether the respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were not duty bound by the terms ad conditions of agreement? iii)Whether the failure of the respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 in performance of her part of agreement was not result in forfeiture of the earnest money in the terms of agreement? iv)Whether the judgment and decree of the learned courts below are not perverse and is the result of non-application of mind to the fact and not liable? v) Whether the judgments of the learned court below are not against the spirit of O.20 R. 5 CPC? It would be seen that questions No. (i) to (iv) are pure questions of fact. The Courts below have found that the respondents were proved to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had appeared before the Sub Registrar on 21.1.1999 since the date prescribed viz. 20.1.1999 was a holiday. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that this finding of fact is 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 questions No. (i) to (iv) have to be answered against the appellant. As regards question No. (v), I find that issues No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were related issues and, therefore, neither there was any illegality in the courts below deciding them together nor such decision has prejudicially affected the appellant in any manner. Consequently question No. (v) is also answered against the appellant. RSA No. 3917 of 2009(O&M) 3 Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, 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 April 19, 2010 sunita