CM No.9363-C of 2005 RSA No.3529 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9363-C of 2005 RSA No.3529 of 2005 Decided on : 13.10.2009 Vinod Kumar ... Appellant versus Ram Pal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance of the agreement dated 07.07.2001 by disbelieving the version of the appellant that in fact his signatures were taken on a blank paper. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the judgments and decrees of the ld. Courts below are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be set aside or not? ii)Whether the ld. Courts below have taken into consideration the fact that the respondent has not CM No.9363-C of 2005 RSA No.3529 of 2005 -2- attached the alleged agreement to sell along with the suit, which is clear cut violation of Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC? iii)Whether both the courts below have totally ignored the fact that the appellant has proved his case that the fraud has been played by the respondent upon the appellant/defendant and the appellant/defendant has never entered into agreement to sell on the ground that the genuineness of the document has not been proved and the witnesses of the original document on which the respondent/plaintiff has relied upon, has not been placed on record? iv)Whether the respondent has committed a fraud vide which they have altered or manipulated the agreement to sell? It would be seen that the proposed questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such mis-reading of evidence so as to render them perverse. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. October 13, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE