Rajinder Singh vs Dalbir Singh And Others on 30 October, 2009

RSA No.2047 of 2008 (O& M)           1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                               CM No.11544-C of 2009 and
                               RSA No. 2047 of 2008(O&M)

                               Date of Decision: October 30 , 2009


Rajinder Singh                                   ...... Appellant


      Versus


Dalbir Singh and others                          ...... Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari


Present:    Mr.Raghbir Chaudhary, Advocate
            for the appellant.
                   ****

Ajay Tewari, J.

CM No.11544-C of 2009

CM allowed as prayed for.

RSA No. 2047 of 2008 (O&M)

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific

performance to the extent of refund of double the amount of earnest

money with regard to an agreement to sell dated 8.7.2002.

The following questions have been proposed”-

i) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract which arose in furtherance of agreement
to sell dated 08.07.2002?

ii) Whether the courts below were justified in partly decreeing
the suit of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the payment of double the
amount of earnest money in spite of the fact that the main
RSA No.2047 of 2008 (O& M) 2

prayer of the plaintiff (issue No.5) as regard to specific
performance has been specifically declined by the courts
below for the reasons returned on the said issue?

iii)Whether in view of the facts and circumstances f the present
case, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below
against the defendant (appellant) are illegal, unjust and
unsustainable in the eyes of law?

Learned counsel has only argued question No. (i). However, the

said question is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has taken me

through the findings of both 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 The same is decided against the

appellant. Questions No. (ii) and (iii) are peripheral questions.

Consequently this appeal as well as application for stay are

dismissed. No costs.

Since the appeal has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.

Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

October 30, 2009
sunita