IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 3234 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 14, 2008 JAGJIT SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HARJIT SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the appellant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of affirmance. The case set up by the plaintiff-respondent was that the defendant-appellant had executed an agreement to sell his land on 19.4.2001. On the extended date of execution of the sale deed, however, he did not turn up and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement. Having considered the entire evidence, the following has been held by the trial Court in para-20 of its judgment: RSA 3234 of 2007 2 “20. After going through the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, with a juristic mind, the court finds on substance neither of the contentions advanced by counsel for the defendant and is of the opinion that suit of the plaintiff must succeed. So far as the case of the plaintiff is concerned, the same is supported by his deposition, duly supported and corroborated by two other independent PWs i.e. Om Parkash marginal witness PW-1 and Makhan Singh, another marginal witness PW-3. Defendant counsel availed an opportunity to cross-examine these PWs, but could not point anything from the cross-examination of either of the PWs, which could show any reason to give a false statement or to disbelieve their version. Moreover, their depositions are supported by the statement of Expert Witness i.e. PW-4, who found that the questioned signatures over the agreement Exh.P-1 and the extensions of date for execution of sale deed are similar and identical with the standard signatures of defendant, appearing on the power of attorney, written statement and on the acknowledgment. He gave some sound reasoning to base his opinion. Moreover, during cross-examination, defendant admitted his signature over the agreement itself. But he added that same were obtained, when the same was blank. However, his deposition in this regard remained un- corroborated and is rather falsified by two independent PWs i.e. both the marginal witnesses PW-1 & PW-3. The defendant had best opportunity to examine his son Samarjit Singh, another witness of this agreement and both the extensions Exh.P-1, Exh.P-1/1 and Exh.P-1/2 respectively, but he failed to examine even his son to support his version. Therefore, it belies his plea that he never executed that agreement or the extensions and his signatures were obtained on blank papers.” The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first appellate Court has not considered the evidence, which was required to be done. I have considered the impugned judgments. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to dispute the fact that the two witnesses to the agreement have deposed against the appellant-defendant. The son of the appellant, who was a witness to the execution of the agreement, was not even produced. The findings of fact cannot be faulted with in view of the discussion in para-20, facts recorded wherein have not RSA 3234 of 2007 3 been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. An attempt has been made to have the evidence re-appreciated so as to arrive at a different conclusion in this Regular Second Appeal. The facts and circumstances of the case, however, do not call for any interference in view of the overwhelming evidence available on the record against the appellant-defendant. Even the signatures of the appellant-defendant match with those on the agreement and the extensions of dates for the execution of sale deed. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed in limine. July 14, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE