RSA No.3931 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3931 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 Lakhwinder Singh .....Appellant v. Anup Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Gobind Dhanda, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.11260-C-II of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 135 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.11259-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3931 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.2.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Kaithal, vide which appeal filed by appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 25.2.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Guhla, was partly allowed and the decree passed by learned trial Court was modified to the extent that relief of specific performance of agreement to sell as claimed by respondent-plaintiff was declined and the alternative decree for recovery of `1,50,000/- was passed alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of payment till RSA No.3931 of 2011(O&M) -2- realization. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.5.2003 executed by present appellant-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff and in the alternative a decree for recovery of `3,00,000/-, i.e., `1,50,000/- as earnest money and `1,50,000/- as damages alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the agreement was duly executed by present appellant-defendant against respondent-plaintiff, who was always ready and still ready to perform his part of the contract and hence suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for specific performance of contract was decreed. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree by present appellant-defendant was partly accepted by learned first appellate Court and relief of specific performance was declined whereas relief of only recovery of `1,50,000/- was granted in favour of respondent-plaintiff. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that interest granted by learned District Judge, Kaithal, is on the higher side. However, there is no merit in the said contention. Execution of agreement was duly proved. Receipt of `1,50,000/- by present appellant-defendant was also duly proved. Learned first appellate Court did not allow penalty of `1,50,000/- as per agreement. Suit was decreed only for principal amount, which was received by present appellant-defendant. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any RSA No.3931 of 2011(O&M) -3- illegality has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by the learned first appellate court 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. 27.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge