R.S.A. No. 363 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 363 of 2006 Date of decision: 19.03.2009 Surinder Singh through G.P.A. Sh. Karnail Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Vijay Kumar and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Akshay Bhan, and Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocates, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 4.9.2004 and 12.11.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants for declaration to the effect that agreement to sell dated 23.10.1999, executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendants is null and void, not executable, and with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from effecting any recovery from the plaintiffs by coersive and forceful means or through police except in due course of law has been dismissed. The learned Courts below on the basis of evidence on record, specially the defence taken by the defendants that they were not to take R.S.A. No. 363 of 2006 -2- any coersive and forceful steps or police help to recover the amount and would follow due process of law, held that the suit as framed was not competent. The only fear of the appellants in the present case is that the finding recorded by the learned Courts below holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that there was no acquision of land, would result in agreement being executable, may not come in way of their defence in the event of litigation by the respondents to enforce the agreement. This apprehension seems to be mis-conceived. The learned counsel for the respondents also agrees that in the event of litigation, against the plaintiff/appellants they would be entitled to take all permissible defences available to them against the said suit, and finding in this suit for injunction would not operate as res judicata. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents and also in view of the fact that this appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration, this appeal is ordered to be dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 19, 2009 R.S.