R.S.A. No. 3762 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3762 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.04.2009 Jasbir Singh and another ....appellants versus Satnam Kaur and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 11200-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 55 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 55 days in refiling the appeal is ordered to be condoned. C.M. is allowed. C.M. No. 11201-C of 2008 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is ordered to be condoned. C.M. is allowed. R.S.A. No. 3762 of 2008 (O&M) -2- R.S.A. No. 3762 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9.9.1983 has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance, on the pleadings that the defendant/respondents, by way of agreement to sell dated 9.9.1983 had agreed to sell 8 kanals of land for total sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Earnest money of Rs.3,000/- was paid and the parties had agreed to execute the conveyance deed, within two years from date of sanctioning of mutation. Mutation in favour of the defendant/respondents was sanctioned in the year 1996. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the sanctioning of mutation was within the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellants. However, in spite of that, they chose to file the suit only on 21.7.2000 i.e. after the expiry of almost 17 years of agreement and four years of sanctioning of mutation. The learned Courts below, therefore, held that the suit was time barred. The learned Courts below further held that the agreement was not enforceable, as the same was executed on behalf of the minor without sanction of the Court, thus, not enforceable. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the learned Courts below were justified R.S.A. No. 3762 of 2008 (O&M) -3- in dismissing the suit for specific performance in spite of the fact that execution of agreement stood proved? 2. Whether the learned Courts below could non-suit the plaintiff/appellants merely for want of permission from the Court with regard to sale of property of minor? 3. Whether the learned Courts below were bound to decree the suit qua recovery of earnest money?" In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Courts below committed an error in law in dismissing the suit in spite of recording a positive finding that the execution of agreement dated 9.9.1983 stood proved. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The learned Courts below were right in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants being time barred, as admittedly the suit was filed after four years of sanctioning of mutation. Other substantial questions of law are not required to be answered, once the suit itself is held to be time barred, and no fault can be found with the finding of learned Courts below. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 20, 2009 R.S.