RSA No2501 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CM No.7490-C of 2010 and RSA No2501 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 06.9.2010. Nirmal Singh --Appellant vs. Charanjit Singh -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Sapan Dhir,Advocate, with Ms.Seema,Advocate,for the the appellant Mr. HNS Gill,Advocate,for the respondent Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) CM No.7490-C of 2010 Notice in the application was issued to which reply has been filed today in Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant/appellant in condoning the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal. Hence, CM is allowed and delay condoned. RSA No.2501 of 2010 This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for specific RSA No2501 of 2010 (O&M) 2 performance of the contract has been decreed. Shorn of un-necessary details, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell, dated 13.9.2001 of land measuring 0K-11Marlas with the plaintiff for Rs.60,000/-. When the defendant refused to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance in which the defendant appeared, denied the execution of the agreement and alleged that the agreement is forged and fabricated. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after taking evidence, both the Courts below have held that the agreement was duly executed and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that none of the attesting witness namely, Harminder Singh and Gurmail Singh had been examined by the plaintiff, therefore, it is not proved that the document has been executed by the appellant. He further submitted that the report of Handwriting Expert is not conclusive. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. All these things would have been proved by the appellant if he had appeared as his own witness but he did not chose to appear, at least to say that the agreement is a forged and fabricated document. Thus, it would not lie in his mouth to say that the -plaintiff has failed to prove the document by examining the attesting witness. Attending circumstances show that one of the attesting witnesses was won-over by the defendant/appellant, whereas the other attesting witness was already dead, whose signatures have been identified by his nephew and the signatures of the appellant have been verified by the plaintiff through Handwriting Expert, to which there is no controversy. As a matter of fact, both the Courts below have recorded a RSA No2501 of 2010 (O&M) 3 concurrent finding of fact with regard to the execution of agreement to sell in question. Once the agreement to sell has been duly proved on record, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law is alleged to have been involved in this appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of CPC. No other point is raised. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. 06.9.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge