RSA No.3685 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3685 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 9, 2011 Malkiat Ram .....Appellant v. Gurdial Bains .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10425-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 206 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.10423-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3685 of 2011 Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 12.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 21.4.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Jalandhar, decreeing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific RSA No.3685 of 2011(O&M) -2- performance of agreement to sell dated 2.3.2006 executed by defendant regarding his property measuring 9 marlas situated in village Patara Tehsil and District Jalandhar by taking the plea that the sale consideration was fixed as `45,000/-. The entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff and it was agreed that plaintiff was at liberty to get the sale deed executed at any time. Possession was also handed over to him. However later on, present appellant-defendant refused to get the sale deed executed. Appellant-defendant denied the execution of the said agreement and also denied having received any consideration. In order to prove the execution of the agreement, respondent-plaintiff himself appeared in witness box as his own witness and also examined one of the attesting witnesses of the agreement, namely, Ranjit Singh PW3. Both the Courts below, after appreciation of evidence found the evidence of both these witnesses reliable and convincing. On the other hand, there is only self suffered statement of appellant-defendant. Moreover, while denying his signature on the agreement, appellant-defendant has also denied his signatures on the written statement as well as affidavit filed by him. It shows that he is not a reliable witness. Both the Courts have rightly not placed reliance upon his testimony. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned courts below 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 RSA No.3685 of 2011(O&M) -3- law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 9.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge