← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaRSA/1422/2016dismissed

Parveen Kumar v. Satish Kumar Arya And ORS

2018-12-11Mr. Justice Amit Rawal2 pages

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.17 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1422-2016 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1422-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.12.2018 Parveen Kumar ... Appellant

Versus

Satish Kumar Arya and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Mehendra Singh Tewatia, Advocate for the appellant.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J.

CM-18203-C-2018 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.

CM-3936-C-2016 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 41 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

CM-3937-C-2016 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.17 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1422-2016 (O&M) RSA-1422-2016 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. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was minor at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. 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. 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. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 11.12.