RSA No.4173 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CMs No.4971-72-C of 2010 in/and RSA No.4173 of 2008(O & M) Date of Decision:08.10.2010 Chet Ram .....appellant Versus Smt.Kamlesh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.4971-C of 2010 The aforesaid appeal was dismissed in default vide order dated 27.01.2010. Vide this application, a prayer has been made for condoning the delay of 59 days in filing the restoration application. Notice of this application was given. However, no one is present on behalf of respondent, despite service. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, delay of 59 days in filing this application for restoration is condoned. CM disposed of. CM No.4972-C of 2010 This is a prayer for recalling the order dated 27.01.2010. Notice of this application was given. No one is present despite service. RSA No.4173 of 2008(O & M) 2 For the reasons mentioned, the prayer for recalling the order dated 27.01.2010 is accepted. Order dated 27.01.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM disposed of. CM No.12621-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 215 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. CM No.12624-C of 2009 Let the appellant make up the deficiency of the court fee, within one month from today. CM disposed of. RSA No.4173 of 2008(O & M) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery, was decreed. As per the averments, the appellant agreed to sell his land as detailed in the plaint for an amount of ` 4 lacs as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 20.03.1995 and received an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- as earnest money. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed which was fixed as 20.03.1996. On the stipulated date, when the plaintiff-respondent approached the defendant-appellant to execute the sale deed and contacted the Halqa Patwari for obtaining revenue papers, she came to know that appellant had already sold more than his share and the entries in the revenue record, showing his share were wrong. The appellant had agreed to repay the amount of earnest money in case of defect in his title. However, on demand, appellant refused to return the amount. Hence the present suit. RSA No.4173 of 2008(O & M) 3 Appellant contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. It was submitted that the agreement in question was fabricated by the husband of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further submitted by the appellant that husband of the plaintiff-respondent had entered into an agreement with him regarding sale of motorcycle and had received a sum of ` 24,000/- and remaining ` 1000/- was to be paid by him after getting the ownership of motorcycle transferred in his name. It appears that the husband of the plaintiff had obtained signatures on some paper and converted the same into an agreement of sale of land in favour of plaintiff- respondent. Dismissal of the suit was prayed. On appreciation of evidence, both the courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that appellant executed the agreement in question and received a sum of ` 3,50,000/- as earnest money. The plea taken by the appellant was held to be not proved as defendant-appellant failed to prove the fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff- respondent Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant was unable to find fault with the findings of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. In view of the aforesaid finding, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. Since the appellant has been granted one month's time to pay the court fee, let the deficient court fee be deposited with the Registry of this Court within one month from today. Compliance report of the deposit of the court fee be made to the Court. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 08.10.2010 neenu