RSA No. 1642 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1642 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 30, 2009 Manohar Lal ...... Appellant Versus Kanwar Singh (dead) through LRs ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Kaliraman, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 6.2.1991. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether on the basis of redemption order Ex.D-17 passed in favour of the defendant/appellant against Vikram and Dhani Ram dated 06.07.1992 the agreement dated 06.02.1991 Ex.PW1/1 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is based upon fraud and misrepresentation? ii)Whether from the cross-examination of PW2, the agreement dated 06.02.1991 can be said to have been executed by the defendant/appellant in favour of the plaintiff/respondent? iii)Whether in the absence of any evidence on the record, RSA No. 1642 of 2006 (O&M) 2 especially from the statement of PW5, Kanwar Singh plaintiff it could be said that the plaintiff/respondent had always been ready and willing to perform its part of the agreement especially when h had not stated that he has brought the registration charges apart from the balance consideration? Learned counsel has argued only questions No. (ii) and (iii). It would be seen that both the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 30, 2009 sunita