Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) Appellant - defendant No.1 is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, civil suit No.302 of 1997 seeking possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.08.1993 and consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the Courts below.
(2.) Mr. Aakash Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/defendant No.1, in support of grounds of appeal has raised the following arguments:- i) Both the Courts below have erroneously arrived at a finding that agreement to sell dated 16.08.1993 was admitted, whereas, it does not show that there has been gross misreading of the written statement. ii) The respondents failed to prove the payment of earnest money of Rs. 90,000/-, much less, did not even examine the handwriting expert vis-a-vis signatures of Attorney of the appellant. iii) The readiness and willingness was conspicuously absent as the suit was filed on 16.01.1997, whereas, the target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was 15.01.1994. In this regard, no explanation has come forth in the pleadings and evidence. iv) The affidavit dated 15.01.1994 has been attested by the Oath Commissioner and his register has not been brought on record, much less, the same has been lost. All these factors, if read in conjunction, there would not have been any occasion for the Court below to exercise the discretionary powers under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 1963 Act ).
(3.) He further submits that on the target date, the respondents were not present with the entire balance sale consideration and thus, urges this Court for setting aside the findings rendered by both the Courts below by formulating the substantial questions of law as culled out in the memorandum of appeal.;