R. S. A. No. 2240 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2240 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 20, 2011 Amarjit Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Pale Khan and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 6200-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 6201-C of 2011 : Averments made in the application supported by affidavit do not make out a sufficient ground for condonation of delay 140 days in filing the appeal. Still, adopting liberal approach, the said delay is condoned. Main Appeal : Defendants no.7 to 9 have filed the instant second appeal. Suit filed by Pale Khan – respondent no.1-plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court. However, in appeal, the lower appellate court has partly decreed the suit against defendants no.1 to 5 and no relief has R. S. A. No. 2240 of 2011 (O&M) 2 been granted against defendants no.7 to 9, who are the appellants herein. It is surprising that in spite thereof, the instant second appeal has been filed by defendants no.7 to 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that in their written statement, defendants no.7 to 9/appellants, along with defendant no.10, had raised plea of agreement dated 18.11.1992 and payment of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money to the plaintiff, but no issue regarding the same was framed, and therefore, after framing issue regarding aforesaid plea of appellants, the suit deserves to be remanded to the trial court, for adjudication of the said issue. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find myself completely unable to accept the same. The contention is completely misconceived and devoid of merit. No counter claim was made by defendants no.7 to 10 in their written statement. Consequently, framing of issue on their aforesaid defence plea and adjudication thereof would have no bearing on the fate of the lis. In addition to it, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed as against the appellants herein. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the instant second appeal is completely misconceived, meritless and frivolous and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE