R. S. A. No. 3455 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A. No. 3455 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2008 Ram Sarup ..... Appellant vs Lachhmi Chand .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant is in appeal before this court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below whereby suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.11.1992 and additional agreement dated 2.4.1993, was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 19.11.1992 and additional agreement dated 2.4.1993 for eastern portion of house bearing no. MC B-11-1222 new 1720 C-11, on payment of balance consideration money. The total consideration as agreed upon between the parties was Rs. 25,000/- and out of which Rs. 5,000/- was paid as earnest money. The execution of agreement to sell was admitted by the appellant/defendant. The last date for registration of sale deed was 2.4.1993. As per the stand of the respondent/plaintiff, the sale-deed could not be executed on the last date fixed for the registration thereof for the reason that Ashwani Kumar, nephew of Ram Sarup appellant filed a suit against Lachmi Chand, Ram Sarup and Darshan Lal regarding the same property. Under these circumstances, an endorsement was made on the back of first page of agreement to sell that the sale deed would now be registered after the disposal of the civil suit within one month thereof. As the sale-deed was not registered, civil suit was filed which was decreed by the trial court and the judgment was upheld by the learned first appellate court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the endorsement on the back of first page of the agreement to sell is not R. S. A. No. 3455 of 2008 2 admitted by the appellant as he had never appended his signatures thereon. He further submitted that time was essence of the agreement and the respondent having not filed the suit within the period of limitation after the expiry of period of one month from the date of dismissal of suit, the same was time barred, as the suit was initially dismissed in default on 20.8.1993. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As far as the endorsement on the agreement to sell is concerned, the learned court below has referred to the statement of the appellant suffered in the Civil Suit No. 605 dated 12.9.1996 in which the appellant appearing as DW1 admitted in his cross-examination that after service in the suit he had made a writing on 2.4.1993 on which he identified his signatures, which are in Urdu. Once the factum of endorsement was admitted by him in his statement in the suit there was no question of denial of the same document in the present case. Accordingly, the learned court below has not gone wrong in recording a finding that the endorsement on the agreement to sell was made by the appellant. As far as the filing of the suit and the question of limitation is concerned, even on that I do not find any substance in the contention raised. As per the endorsement the sale-deed was to be executed within one month from the date of dismissal of suit. The suit was dismissed on 20.8.1993. The contention is that the suit for specific performance should have been filed within three years from the expiry of one month from the date the suit was dismissed in default. However, the fact has not been denied that the suit, which was dismissed on 20.8.1993, was restored and was finally dismissed again in default on 24.7.2000. Keeping this fact in view, I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that either the suit was time barred or if considered that the earlier suit was restored, would be pre-mature. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 18.11.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge