RSA No.3427 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3427 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 4, 2011 Sarvan Kumar .....Appellant v. Chunni Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.9558-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 152 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.9557-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3427 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 27.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 5.12.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of contract was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. RSA No.3427 of 2011(O&M) -2- Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 7.8.1995 executed by present appellant-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff. It was averred that subsequently another writing was executed on 30.5.1996 extending the period for execution of sale deed, as per consent of the parties. A sum of `82,000/- was paid at the time of execution of agreement dated 7.8.1995 and the balance amount of `78,000/- was to be paid on or before 25.5.1995. Possession of the land was also delivered to respondent- plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement. However, present appellant- defendant did not perform his part of the contract and rather refused to perform his part of the contract on the ground that sale consideration was less. Dispute between the parties was settled due to intervention of the respectable persons and it was agreed that respondent-plaintiff would pay an amount of `2,95,000/- instead of `1,60,000/- and accordingly another writing dated 30.5.1996 was executed. Another sum of `1,88,000/- was paid by respondent-plaintiff to present appellant. Only `25,000/- remained to be paid. On refusal of appellant-defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent-plaintiff after taking balance sale consideration of `25,000/-, the present suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide impugned judgment. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that respondent-plaintiff was not ready to perform his part of the contract and that on the point no reliance can be placed upon testimony RSA No.3427 of 2011(O&M) -3- of PW9, i.e., Reader to Tehsildar, who deposed that no record is being maintained for marking presence of parties, who had visited the Tehsildar's office for getting a document registered on a particular date. However, plea cannot be accepted. Execution of impugned agreement to sell is duly proved by examining scribe and attesting witnesses of the agreement. Dispute was also settled due to intervention of the respectable persons of both the parties and another writing was written. Though initially sale price was agreed as `1,60,000/- and however, respondent-plaintiff agreed to pay `2,95,000/- due to intervention of respectable persons of the village and despite that the agreement was not honoured by present appellant-defendant. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by 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 law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 4.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge