R.S.A No. 3951 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.11758-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 3951 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : October 27, 2009 Indrawati and others ...... Appellant (s) v. Banarsi and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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.11758-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 54 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.3951 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court partly accepting the appeal of the appellants and ordering return of earnest money etc. instead of maintaining the decree for specific performance which had been passed in favour of the respondents by the trial R.S.A No. 3951 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: Court. On 16.9.2009, the following order was passed :- “ Learned counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are ready to execute the sale deed as decreed by the Trial Court. Notice of motion. Learned counsel prays for time to serve the respondents through their counsel. Permitted. May serve the counsel through dasti process. Adjourned to 23.9.2009.” Today, learned counsel for the respondents has informed me that the above offer is patently illusory since during the pendency of the suit, the appellants sold the land in dispute. As per counsel for the respondents, to now relegate the respondents to the remedy of filing a separate suit against the subsequent purchaser(s) would be most unfair. In this view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to reject the prayer made by counsel for the appellants. On merits, the following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in ordering the payment of alleged amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of payment till realisation ? ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in awarding 9% interest after having found the case of the plaintiffs to be false for specific performance ? R.S.A No. 3951 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: iii) Whether the lower appellate Court is justified in ordering the payment of amount to the plaintiffs which amount has not even been proved on the file ? iv) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court regarding payment of balance amount of Rs.2,15,043/- is vitiated in the facts and circumstances of the case ?” It would be seen that the main question is question No. (iii) which is essentially a question of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence as would require interference by this Court under Section 100 of the C.P.C. Once this seminal question is held against the appellants, the peripheral questions No. (i) and (ii) regarding interest and question No. (iv) regarding refund also have to be decided against the appellants. Consequently, 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. October 27, 2009 ( AJAY TEWARI ) kk JUDGE