Judgment:
Rs.No.3451 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.3451 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision:08.07.2014 Mohinder Kumar ....Appellant Versus Gurmail Chand ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG1 Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?.
2.
To be referred to reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present:- Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.08.2007 was dismissed by both the Courts below.
Suffice is to say that both the Courts below found that appellant has failed to prove agreement to sell in question which was allegedly executed by the defendant.
It could not be disputed before this Court that marginal witness of the agreement to sell, Bal Krishan, who appeared as PW-2, in his cross-examination has stated that he never witnessed execution of agreement to sell.
Further, it is not in dispute that Jagdish Ram-second marginal witness of the agreement to sell was summoned but given up.
Appellant has further failed to Kadian Savita 2014.07.10 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Rs.No.3451 of 2014 (O&M) 2 prove agreement to sell by producing scribe of the document.
Not only this, even payment of earnest money of `1,00,000/- at the time of agreement to sell in question on 27.08.2007 has not been proved, as admittedly, appellant himself admitted in his cross-examination that he withdrew the amount of earnest money on 28.08.2007 from the Bank and paid the said amount to the respondent on 28.08.2007.
However, there is no evidence on record to prove the aforesaid factum of payment to the defendant.
In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, which could not be refuted before this Court, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below.
Thus, no substantial questions of law, as raised in the grounds of appeal, arise in this appeal.
Dismissed.
July 08, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE Kadian Savita 2014.07.10 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh