IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3114 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 20, 2011. Ram Kali and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Gurdas Singh. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Jaidka, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 09.05.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 14.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Samrala vide which suit filed by appellants- plaintiffs was dismissed. RSA No.3114 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, the present suit for permanent injunction was filed by appellants-plaintiffs against respondent-defendant restraining him from claiming and recovering any amount in the shape of principal or interest from the appellants-plaintiffs and further restraining the respondent-defendant from dispossessing them from the land in dispute with a further relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent-defendant to return the original pronote, receipt and blank stamp papers allegedly executed by the appellants-plaintiffs as security documents. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant by taking the plea that appellants-plaintiffs had agreed to sell the property in dispute vide agreement to sell dated 22.04.2002 for a sale consideration of `1,20,000/- and that they have also received `1,10,000/- from defendant and agreed to execute sale deed on 21.04.2003. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by them against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. Admittedly, respondent-defendant had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.04.2002 against the present appellants-plaintiffs which was decreed. Appeal filed by present appellants against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellants that even regular second appeal filed by the present appellants against the said judgment and decree has also been dismissed by this Court. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned 2 RSA No.3114 of 2011 courts below that respondent-defendant is taking lawful proceedings against present appellants-plaintiffs by filing suit for specific performance and hence, no injunction against the lawful process can be issued. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 20, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3