R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 Date of Decision:22.09.2011 Balwinder Singh ......Appellant Versus Anshu Sharma and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Avtar S.Khinda, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having kept the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. or not. 2. Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is that, Balwinder Singh son of Shangara Singh-appellant-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against Deepak Pal and Chtinder Pal sons of Hans Raj, (since deceased) (now being represented through their LRs)-respondent-defendants(for short “the defendants”), for a decree of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.03.1992(Ex.P-1), with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining them(defendants), from interfering in his peaceful possession of the property in dispute, inter alia, pleading that although the defendants executed an agreement to sell(Ex.P-1) in his favour, but did not fulfill their part of the contract R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 2 of the execution of the sale-deed. 3. The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement stoutly denying all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 10.09.2001. 5. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009. 6. The appellant-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees and preferred the present regular second appeal. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this regard. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the execution of the agreement to sell(Ex.P-1) and consideration were duly proved, so, the Courts below committed a mistake in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, sans merit. 9. As is evident from the record that, having completed all the codal formalities and considering the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective, the trial Court recorded a finding of fact that the agreement to sell(Ex.P-1) is not genuine, but a forged document and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 10.09.2001, which in substance is as under:- “Resultantly, I have formed the opinion that the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 does not bear the signature of Deepak Pal. Rather, the signature of Deepak Pal have been forged and fabricated by someone on the agreement to sell Ex.P-1. Therefore, the agreement to sell is not genuine document in the eyes of law. It is nothing more than forged agreement. As I have found that the agreement to sell Ex.P-1 is forged R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 3 document. So proving his presence in the office of Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur by Balwinder Singh, by proving application Ex.P-2 and affidavit Ex.P-3 become irrelevant and immaterial. Ultimately, I have formed the opinion that Deepak Pal did not execute any agreement to sell Ex.P-1 in favour of plaintiff. Nor did he deliver the vacant possession of the said property to him. So the plaintiff is neither entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell nor for refund of `2,15,000/-. Thus, I decide all the issues in favour of defendants and against plaintiff.” 10. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.04.2009. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 12. Moreover, the Courts below, having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, have recorded a findings of fact that the agreement to sell(Ex.P-1) is a forged and fabricated document. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under Section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-reasoned decision/impugned judgments and decrees. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, to assail the impugned judgments and decrees. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 14. Sequelly, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 4 beyond the scope of second appeal. Since, no question of law, much less substantial is involved, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh's case(supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. September 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 5 C.M.Nos.7331-7333-C of 2010 in R.S.A. No.2450 of 2010 Present: Mr.Avtar S.Khinda, Advocate, for the appellant. **** C.M.No.7331-C of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.7333-C of 2010 and C.M.No.7332-C of 2010 There is a delay of 7 days' in filing and 39 days' in re-filing the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, going through the record/contents of the applications, which are supported by affidavits, the same are allowed. The delay of 7 days in filing and 39 days in re-filing the appeal, is hereby condoned under the present set of circumstances. Civil Misc. applications stand disposed of accordingly. September 22, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE