IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.481-C of 2010 & RSA No.2526 of 2009 Decided on :20.01.2010 Harbhajan Singh ... Appellant versus Baldev Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Ahuja, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for respondents. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.481-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 95 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2526 of 2009 This appeal has been filed by the vendor against whom concurrent judgments have been rendered in respect of an agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the fact that the appeal of other vendees bearing RSA No.389 of 2009 has been admitted. Learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary has argued that in any case the vendor has no subsisting right or title on that property. In fact the vendor has no RSA No.2526 of 2009 -2- locus standi to maintain any action in this matter because in any case he has sold whatever he has interest in the land. Learned counsel has further argued that even if the appeal of other vendees is dismissed in equity, the balance amount which the respondents has to pay should go to those vendees and not to this vendor because they have paid good money to the present appellant. In my opinion, the appellant has admittedly lost his all the subsisting rights/title in the property. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. January 20, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE