In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No.2363 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 31, 2008 Subhash Chander ... Appellant versus Om Parkash ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Amit Parashar, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment dated 29.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal of the appellant- defendant (herein referred as 'the defendant') against the decree for specific performance passed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent (herein referred as 'the plaintiff'). The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 2.2.1999 whereby the defendant had agreed to sell the property for a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- and had received an earnest money to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/-. The sale was to be made on or before 10.10.1999 after receiving the remaining sale consideration. Though the plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar on 11.10.1999 as 10.10.1999 was holiday, with balance sale consideration and the expenses for registration of the sale deed, yet, the defendant did not put in appearance, therefore, the present suit was filed, which was contested by the defendant on the allegations that he never entered into any such agreement but he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from the plaintiff under some writing which was not read over to him. The said agreement is the result of fraud and forgery, as such the defendant is not bound by the agreement. After the hot contest, the suit was decreed and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal of the defendant. Though a specific plea has been raised by the defendant that the R.S.A. No.2363 of 2008 (O&M) -2- alleged agreement is the result of fraud but no evidence has been led to prove the same. The agreement has been duly signed by the defendant and he himself has mentioned that he received a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- under the said agreement. A perusal of the agreement to sell Ex.PW2/A, further reveals that it bears the signatures of both the parties and signature of Raj Kumar scribe besides endorsement made by the defendant. The plaintiff in order to establish the execution of the agreement examined Baru Ram (PW1), Vijay Mittal (PW3) and the plaintiff himself appeared as PW-2. In order to prove his presence before the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date the plaintiff has proved many documents on the record. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed in limni. July 31, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge