Disposed

Parveen Kumar v. Satish Kumar Arya and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2018RSA/1422/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a restoration appeal, condoning delays in refiling appeals for CM-18203-C-2018, CM-3936-C-2016, and CM-3937-C-2016. The regular second appeal against a dismissal of a specific performance suit based on admissions is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises.

What did the court decide?

RMSA-1422-2016 restored; delays in CM-18203-C-2018, CM-3936-C-2016, and CM-3937-C-2016 condoned. Regular second appeal dismissed.

Parveen Kumar Vs Satish Kumar Arya and Ors. — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.17 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

¶2

RSA-1422-2016 (O&M)

¶3

145

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

RSA-1422-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.12.2018

Parveen Kumar

... Appellant

Versus

Satish Kumar Arya and another

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Mehendra Singh Tewatia, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

AMIT RAWAL, J. CM-18203-C-2018

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number i.e. RSA-1422-2016.

¶16

CM-3936-C-2016

¶17

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 41 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

¶18

CM stands disposed of.

¶19

CM-3937-C-2016

¶20

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶21

CM stands disposed of.

¶22

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.17 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶23

RSA-1422-2016 (O&M)

¶24

RSA-1422-2016

¶25

The appellant-defendant has not been successful in defending the suit for specific performance of agreement, which was decreed on the statement of DW2, Kamlesh, his mother stating that Bhagat Singh, father of defendant, had taken the earnest money by admitting the agreement to sell.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was minor at the time of execution of the agreement to sell.

¶27

When confronted as to what piece of evidence has been brought on record to establish that the appellant-defendant was minor at the time of execution of agreement to sell and the answer was ''None''. Neither the judgments and decrees of the Courts below deal with this situation. In such circumstances, the Courts below had no occasion, but to dismiss the suit.

¶28

In this view of the matter, there cannot be any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination.

¶29

Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶30

11.12.2018 ( AMIT RAWAL ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶31

Yogesh Sharma

¶32

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No

¶33

Whether Reportable Yes/ No

Parveen Kumar v. Satish Kumar Arya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kumar v. Satish Kumar Arya and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Dvi and Ors. Vs Sandeep and Ors.

Ratan Singh Vs Bhajan Kaur and Ors.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs Amar Ahuja

Mohammad Bashiruden Vs Surjit Singh & Ors.

Jasbir Kaur Vs Satish Kumar Sharma

Bishamber Singh Deceased Th Lrs Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Nand Kishore and Ors.