RSA No.4875 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4875 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 22 , 2009 Jagsir Singh ...........Appellant Versus Rajpal Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Jagsir Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.11.1999. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozeopur vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “ 2. Precisely speaking the case of the appellant/plaintiff before the ld.lower court was that the defendant was the owner in RSA No.4875 of 2009 (O&M) 2 possession of the suit land measuring 11 kanal 6 marlas and he agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff @ Rs.1,40,000/- and received Rs. one lac as earnest money on the day when the agreement to sell dated 15.11.99 was executed. The stipulated date for execution of the sale deed was 15.11.2000 but the parties mutually extended the date from 15.11.2000 to 14.10.2004 upon receipt of Rs.50,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff in the presence of marginal witnesses. On the stipulated date the plaintiff/appellant reached the office of Sub Registrar and remained present there from 9 a.m. to 4.55 p.m. but the defendant did not turn up and ultimately the plaintiff got his presence marked by moving an application before the Sub Registrar Ferozepur. The plaintiff was also ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and when the defendant despite of legal notice served upon him did not execute the sale deed, then they were compelled to file the present suit. 3. Upon notice the defendant filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that suit is not maintainable and that suit is time barred. 4. Terming the agreement to sell to be a forged and fabricated document having been prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with the marginal witnesses and the document writer, it is also alleged that the defendant was selling his crop in the commission agency of the plaintiff namely M/s Aulakh Commission Agency and during that dealing the plaintiff may have obtained the RSA No.4875 of 2009 (O&M) 3 signatures of the defendant on the alleged agreement to sell. Totally denying the execution of the agreement, pryer is made for dismissal of the suit with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 15.11.99 in favour of the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has remained ready and willing to perform his part of agreement?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 15.11.99 or in the alternative he is entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.1,97,750/- as prayed for?OPP 4.Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD 5.Whether the present suit is hopelessly time barred?OPD 6.Whether the agreement dated 15.11.99 is forged and fabricated document?OPD 7. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.11.1999. However, despite availing nine effective opportunities, plaintiff failed to lead any evidence. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. RSA No.4875 of 2009 (O&M) 4 There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that one opportunity be granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Plaintiff was required to be vigilant and conclude his evidence expeditiously. It has been observed by the Additional District Judge that nine effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff but for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, he failed to conclude his evidence. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 22, 2009 arya