This appeal against concured judgments dismissing specific performance was dismissed. The high court held that the proposed questions were pure facts not entitled to interference under Section 100 CPC as findings were not perverse.
Appeal dismissed. No costs. Civil Misc. Applications stood disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 12995-C of 2007 CM No. 8591-C of 2007 and RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 19, 2010
Mange Ram
...... Appellant
Versus
Krishan
...... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.S.R.Hooda, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 12995-C of 2007
For the reasons recorded this application is allowed. Appeal is
restored to its original number.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 8591-C of 2007
For the reasons recorded, delay of 407 days in filing the
present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M)
This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the
RSA No. 3092 of 2007 (O&M)
2
Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for specific performance.
The following questions have been proposed:-
It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned 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 is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
January 19 , 2010 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the act of the appellant-plaintiff was bona fide and the respondent's act was mala fide regarding execution of sale deed.
Whether the lower courts misread the admission regarding earnest money payment in the agreement to sell.
Whether the figure of earnest money was interpolated to defeat the ends of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mange Ram
Krishan
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
