RSA No.735 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.735 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 11.02.2011 Bagha Singh ……Appellant Versus Raman Kumar …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. O.P. Kamboj, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.2009-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.2008-C of 2011 Heard. This is application for condonation of delay of 1224 days in re-filing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. It is alleged in the application that the appeal was originally filed within limitation, but it was returned by the Registry with some objections vide note dated 28.08.2007. On the next day, the applicant-appellant received the paper book from the Registry and took it with him as talks for compromise were going on between the parties. It is also alleged that on the request of Panchayat and respectables of the area, the plaintiff agreed to settle the actual accounts with the appellant-defendant and promised not to execute RSA No.735 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - the decree and, therefore, the appellant did not re-file the appeal, but now the respondent-plaintiff threatened to execute the money decree passed in his favour by the Courts below. Even taking aforesaid averments made in the application at face value, the same cannot be accepted to condone long delay of 1224 days i.e more than 3 years and 4 months. If such long delay running into several years is condoned on such vague, general and specious averments, then the very purpose prescribing limitation period would be defeated completely. The application is frivolous and meritless and is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal. Since application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground. However, even on merit, the appellant cannot succeed. Bagha Singh-defendant has filed the instant second appeal, having lost in both the Courts below. Respondent plaintiff Raman Kumar filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative for recovery of money. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.80000/- per acre and received Rs.2,50,000/- as earnest money and executed agreement to sell dated 14.10.1999. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant committed breach thereof. RSA No.735 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant pleaded that he is illiterate small farmer whereas the plaintiff is commission agent. The plaintiff obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on blank paper. No amount was advanced by plaintiff to defendant at the time of alleged agreement which is result of fraud. Some other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2005 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 14.10.1999, the date of agreement till, decree of the trial Court and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree of the trial Court till recovery. Suit for possession of suit land by specific performance of the agreement was dismissed. First appeal preferred by defendant as well as cross-objections preferred therein by the plaintiff- respondent stand dismissed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2007. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant had been selling his agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff who obtained thumb impression of the defendant on blank paper. The contention cannot be accepted. If the defendant had not taken any amount as loan or otherwise from the plaintiff, there was no occasion for the defendant to have affixed his thumb RSA No.735 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - impressions on blank paper. The plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined Ramesh Kumar PW-1, who is marginal witness of the agreement. He has deposed according to plaintiff’s version. The plaintiff himself also appeared in the witness box and stated according to his version. Mehar Singh, who scribed the impugned agreement, has also appeared as witness and supported the plaintiff’s case. The aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff is sufficient to prove his case. The plaintiff has examined scribe and one attesting witness of the agreement, besides himself stepping into the witness box. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as his own witness and broadly stated according to his own version. The defendant also examined Balbir Singh DW-2, who stated about general practice of the plaintiff regarding obtaining of thumb impressions of farmers on blank stamp papers. This evidence of the defendant is not sufficient to rebut the cogent evidence of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendant by his pleading and testimony admitted his thumb impressions on the impugned agreement. The agreement reveals that the defendant received Rs.2,50000/- from the plaintiff at the time of agreement. Plaintiff’s suit has been decreed for recovery of the said money with interest at modest rate and even relief of specific performance of the agreement has been denied to the plaintiff by the Courts below. Consequently, there is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the judgments of the Courts below so as to warrant interference therein at the hands of the defendant- appellant. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. RSA No.735 of 2011 (O & M) - 5 - For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 11.02.2011 A.kaundal