AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 12118-C of 2009
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 67 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 12119-C of 2009
For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.
Persons mentioned in para No. 3 are directed to be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Gurdeep Kaur subject to all just exceptions.
Registry is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of parties.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the ld. Lower Appellate Court modifying that of the Trial Court and decreeing the suit of the respondent in the alternative i.e. Refund of earnest money and not specific performance (as had been decided by the Trial Court). The following questions have been proposed:
i) Whether the agreement to sell dt. 06.11.1997 Ex.P1 is a forged and fabricated document?
ii) Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below are based upon misreading of evidence?
iii) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees dt. 24.12.2008 and 15.01.2008 can be legally sustained in the eyes of law?
The question which has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants is question No. (i). In my opinion, this question is pure question of fact. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference u/s 100 of CPC. Once it is held that the main question is to be held against the appellants, questions No. (ii) & (iii) would also to be held against the appellant.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.