R.S.A.No.3347 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3347 of 2007 Date of Decision : 21.7.2009 Darshan Singh ...Appellant Versus Bant Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance of agreement dated 3.9.2001, was decreed. The plaintiff has sought specific performance of the aforesaid agreement for purchase of land measuring 2 Kanals 15 Marlas @ Rs.3,25,000/- per acre. Rs.70,000/- was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 4.3.2002. Initially, the period for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 2.9.2992. Thereafter, on payment of another sum of Rs.10,000/- to the defendant-appellant, the time of execution of the sale deed was extended upto 2.3.2003. Still on account of failure of the defendant-appellant to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed the present suit on 14.5.2003. R.S.A.No.3347 of 2007 2 The defendant-appellant has asserted in his written statement denying the execution of agreement and receipt of earnest money of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.10,000/- later on. However, on the basis of evidence recorded particularly that of Karnail Singh (PW-3), attesting witness of agreement dated 3.9.2001, Mangal Sain (PW-2), Deed Writer and that of the plaintiff himself, a finding has been returned that the defendant- appellant has executed agreement to sell dated 3.9.2001 and has received Rs.80,000/- as part consideration for sale of his land measuring 2 Kanals 15 Marlas. The argument raised by the appellant is that the transaction was of a loan between the parties. It has been considered by the first Appellate Court and negated. In fact, the defendant has not raised such plea in his written statement nor before the trial Court. Therefore, the plea, which is primarily based on fact was raised before the first Appellate Court for the first time. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence. However, it could not be pointed that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 21.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE