RSA No.335 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.335 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: July 19, 2011 Surinder Kumar .....Appellant v. Bant Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.5.2008 dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 13.82005 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.6.1995 allegedly executed by respondent-defendant in his favour. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant by taking the plea that no such agreement was executed by him and that the agreement, if any, is a result of fraud. In order to prove the valid execution of the agreement, RSA No.335 of 2009(O&M) -2- appellant-plaintiff has not even placed on record the original agreement. Rather, the plea has been taken that the same was lost and only photo-copy of the agreement was placed on record. Regarding loss of document, a very vague plea has been taken by appellant-plaintiff. No particulars have been given as to when and from where the original agreement was lost. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of original agreement and its loss. None of the attesting witnesses of the agreement has been examined by appellant- plaintiff. Only Handwriting expert has been examined and, however, he has also only compared the disputed signatures on the photostat copy of the agreement as original is not available. Hence, it has been rightly observed by both the Courts below that in the absence of examination of any of the attesting witnesses of the agreement, it cannot be said that the appellant-plaintiff has been able to prove due execution of the agreement by respondent-defendant. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the lower appellate court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 19.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge RSA No.335 of 2009(O&M) -3-