1 RSA No. 253 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- R. S. A. No. 253 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.5.2009 Dhanna Singh and another….. Appellants Versus Ravinder Singh and others…..Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the appellants. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The appellants before this Court are the plaintiffs, whose suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial court on 20.7.2007, and the decree of the trial court was affirmed when the appeal carried by them was dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2008. The facts as emerge from the record are that appellant- plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were jointly engaged in the business of construction of buildings. The money transactions relating to the job were being looked after by defendant No.1. The latter, as per plaintiffs’ allegations, got signed some blank stamp papers from them on the pretext that the same would be used in connection with their 2 RSA No. 253 of 2009 business as and when it so required. The plaintiffs pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 colluded with each other and consequently they fraudulently converted the stamp papers into an agreement dated 11.12.2001 in favour of Amarjit Kaur, defendant No.3, wife of one Harinder Singh, a relation of Ravinder Singh, defendant No.1. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs never executed the above agreement nor was the amount of rupees four lacs indicated therein was ever received by them and the agreement in question was a forged and fictitious document and was not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants were influential persons and they were bent upon to recover rupees four lacs from the plaintiffs forcibly and illegally, with the connivance of the police. The plaintiffs thus, prayed for a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from recovering the aforesaid amount of rupees four lacs from them illegally with the connivance of the police. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 refrained from putting appearance in the trial court despite being duly served with notices. Defendant No.3, Amarjit Kaur, however, filed written statement and took a plea that she had no knowledge about the work of contractor-ship stated to be carried out by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. She had not prepared the agreement dated 11.12.2001 in connivance with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was pleaded that in fact, Dhanna Singh, plaintiff No.1, had agreed to sell his land situated in village Vain Poin, Tehsil Khadsur Sahib to defendant No.3 vide agreement to sell, for a sale consideration of rupees four lacs and he had agreed to execute the sale 3 RSA No. 253 of 2009 deed up to 11.6.2002 in favour of defendant No.3. Said Dhanna Singh, received the entire amount of sale consideration at the time of execution of the agreement and in pursuance of a writing dated 11.6.2002, made on the back of the agreement, the date for execution of the sale deed was extended with mutual consent. Manjit Singh, plaintiff No.2 and Ravinder Singh, defendant No.1 were the attesting witnesses to the said agreement. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence observed that the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy none of the prominent ingredients, which are of paramount consideration for granting a decree for permanent injunction. The trial court noticed that the plaintiffs did not produce on record any document or any other evidence showing their accounts that might indicate that they along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 were jointly engaged in the job of Thekedari (Building Contractor- ship). It transpired during the course of evidence that defendant No.3 had already filed a suit for specific performance, or in the alternative for the recovery of the amount paid to the plaintiffs at the time of the agreement in question against them which was pending disposal in a civil court at Tarn Taran. Not only this, the plaintiffs rather admitted their signatures on the agreement to sell, dated 11.12.2001, Exhibit D.1, and the endorsement, Exhibit D2, made thereon. As a result of the above findings, the trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs appeal. 4 RSA No. 253 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record with his assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, the findings as recorded by the courts below could not have been arrived at and the same were wrong and illegal. The counsel further submitted that this Court should record an independent finding after re-appreciating the evidence. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that in order to differ with the concurrent findings of the courts below, re- appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in view of the impediment contained in the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, the findings recorded by the courts below are based on correct appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence and also on the sound reasoning. No illegality or perversity could be shown by the counsel in the said findings so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith in second appeal. No substantial question of law arises nor has any been pointed out by the counsel, for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) May 5, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*