LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-125

KALA SINGH Vs. MAHINDER SINGH

Decided On May 14, 2009
KALA SINGH Appellant
V/S
MAHINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. No. 5852-C of 2009 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been moved for condoning the delay of 344 days in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application, that the delay has occurred as the appellant and the respondent were negotiating compromise and it was only on failure of the talks that the plaintiff / appellant approached this Court for filing of the appeal. It transpired that on account of period spent in negotiating compromise the delay of 344 days occurred. The delay, therefore, was said to be unintentional and bona fide and for the reasons beyond the control of the appellant, as he bona fide believed that the matter would stand compromised. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed, the delay of 344 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. No. 5853-C of 2009

(2.) THE plaintiff / respondent brought a suit on the pleading, that the appellant / defendant had entered into an agreement to sell the land measuring 8 Kanals @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per Killa, and received a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- as earned money. It was also pleaded, that on the date fixed, for the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff / appellant appeared before the Sub Registrar along with the consideration amount and other expenses, however, the appellant / defendant did not come present. Thus, it was claimed, that the plaintiff / respondent was always willing and still willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) LEARNED Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the agreement was executed by the defendant / appellant. The learned Courts below held that the defendant / appellant failed to prove the fraud or misrepresentation as pleaded.