Regular Second Appeal No. 4361 of 2006 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 4361 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 01, 2008 Ram Dass ... Appellant Versus Prem Chand .. Respondent CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri Pankaj Bali, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent. PRITAM PAL , J. This Regular Second Appeal by defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.3.2005 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, whereby a suit for specific performance in respect of the suit-property, was decreed. Thereafter the first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2006 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sonepat. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come-up in this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file carefully. Without going into any details, suffice it to say that here in the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant has primarily argued that in Regular Second Appeal No. 4361 of 2006 2 ... fact, a loan of Rs. 50,000/- was taken by the appellant from respondent – Prem Chand in the year 2001 and at that time, the latter had obtained signatures of the appellant on some blank papers, which in fact, were later on converted into an agreement to sell in respect of the suit-property. In that behalf, a complaint case was also filed by the wife of the appellant against the respondent. In this case, notice of motion was also issued on the aforesaid point of arguments, raised on behalf of the appellant. Now, learned counsel for the respondent has repelled the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and then made reference to the written statement filed by the appellant before the trial court wherein, not a word is there regarding taking of loan of Rs.50,000/- by the appellant from the respondent. Further, there is nothing on the file, which could show that the respondent is facing any case on the basis of the complaint, as alleged by the appellant. Rather, during the course of arguments, it has been stated by learned counsel for the respondent that till date, the respondent has not received any notice or summon from any Court on the complaint filed by the wife of appellant. In these given facts and circumstances, the aforesaid story of taking loan of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent in place of execution of agreement to sell, has been set-up for the first time only before this Court, that too is not based upon any pleading. It is not understandable if there was any dispute over taking of loan by the appellant from the respondent, why that fact was not pleaded by the appellant in his written statement filed before the trial Court. Now all this appears to have been taken after- thought. In fact, the validity and genuineness of the agreements to sell Regular Second Appeal No. 4361 of 2006 3 ... in this case, has been duly proved on record before the courts below. On that count, both the courts below have given concurrent findings. More so, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law, for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed at motion stage. [ PRITAM PAL ] April 1, 2008. JUDGE som