IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 539 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 06, 2009 Narender Kumar and others …..Appellants Versus M/s Ajay Enterprises Limited …..Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of an agreement dated 1.4.1994 was decreed by learned trial Court on 30.11.2007. The judgment and decree so passed was challenged by the defendants by filing a first appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 3.11.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants are before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/3 was a bogus document as it was shown to have been executed on 1.4.1994 whereas the judicial stamp paper in question was purchased on 5.4.1994. Pursuant to order passed on March 06, 2009, the lower R.S.A. No. 539 of 2009 -2- Courts' record stands requisitioned. A perusal of agreement Ex.PW1/3 shows that the stamp paper was purchased on 5.1.1994 and not on 5.4.1994 as claimed by the defendants/appellants. Mere fact that PW1 Jiwan Malhotra in his cross examination admitted that he was not aware as to when or who purchased the stamp paper would not be sufficient to hold that the stamp paper was purchased on 5.4.1994. Similarly, the argument that the typed agreement contained a number of blank columns which were filled in by hand, cannot be accepted as at the time of its being typed out, the entire information might not be available. Learned counsel also submitted that receipt Ex.PW1/5 is only a photocopy and, therefore, it could not be read in evidence. During his testimony, PW1 Jiwan Malhotra had deposed that Kishan Chand had also affixed his thumb impression on the receipt in his presence. As the original receipt was stated to have been misplaced, therefore, with the leave of the Court, its copy Ex.PW1/5 was proved. In their written statement, the defendants/appellants did not deny that Kishan Chand and his sons had affixed thumb impressions/signatures on the agreement to sell. Rather, they admitted the thumb impressions/signatures when they stated that the thumb impressions/signatures were obtained on various typed unfilled papers at their residence in the first week of January, 1994 without explaining R.S.A. No. 539 of 2009 -3- the contents thereof except that the rate of Rs.7,20,000/- per acre was fixed and they signed/thumb marked as they had full faith, confidence and trust in Shri Rama Nand, Advocate. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. These cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. These are not liable to be reversed in a second appeal which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the defendants/appellants, arises for determination. Resultantly, there is no merit in the appeal, and, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 06, 2009 JUDGE satish