Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2359 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision:25.07.2013 Charanjiv Sharma son of Shri Labhu Ram son of Pt.
Ram Chand, C/o M/s R.K.Pharmacy, Jalandhar Cantt...Appellant versus Ved Parkash son of Shri BanaRs.Dass son of Dhani Ram, resident of House No.374, Mohalla Brampuri, opposite AdaRs.Theatre, Khanna, District Ludhiana....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN ---- Present: None for the appellant.
Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the respondent.
---- K.Kannan, J.
(Oral) 1.
The second appeal is brought for consideration against the concurrent decrees granting the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 24.12.1978.
The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant had received an advance of `15,000/- at the time of execution of the agreement but he failed to turn up for execution of the sale in the manner agreed to.
The plaintiff would contend that he also turned up at the Sub-Registrar's office and had his presence marked and the absence of the defendant to be present and execute Kumar Sanjeev 2013.07.30 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No.2359 of 1986 (O&M) -2- the sale.
The trial Court found that the plaintiff had established the readiness and willingness and also found that the defendant was guilty of not executing the sale deed.
Against the decree granted, the defendant had preferred the appeal and the appeal was dismissed.”
2. In a case relating to finding of readiness and willingness in favour of the plaintiff and the genuineness of the agreement in a situation where the defendant was trying to contend that it was brought about by a fraud which is repelled by both the courts below, there is no question of law which is involved for consideration.
Although the case had been admitted on 10.10.1986, I was prepared to examine it and see whether there involved any substantial question of law for consideration.
I find none that exists for an appraisal.”
3. The counsel for the respondent informs that apart from the payment of advance which was made at the time of execution of the agreement, the balance of sale consideration that had been deposited pursuant to the decree was allowed to be withdrawn by the plaintiff at the time when this Court granted stay of execution of the decree.
The balance of sale consideration which was withdrawn is directed to be deposited within a period of 8 weeks and obtain a sale deed in accordance with law.
The time for completion of sale shall therefore be also two months from today being the time before when the deposit shall be made.
Kumar Sanjeev 2013.07.30 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No.2359 of 1986 (O&M) -3- 4.
The second appeal is therefore without merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25 07.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.07.30 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh