The Court once again holds that in the absence of any substantial question of law, no interference under Section 100 CPC is warranted; upholds existing precedent on the limited scope of second appellate jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact relating to unproven earnest money and unclear sale transaction—authoritatively binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RSA/1034/2022 of NISHAN SINGH Vs GURDEEP BEDI @ GURDEEP SINGH BEDI AND ORS |
| CNR | PHHC010308812022 |
| Date of Registration | 12-05-2022 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana on Section 100 CPC issues |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Section 100 CPC), Specific Performance, Refund of Earnest Money |
| Questions of Law | Whether, absent a substantial question of law, a second appeal is maintainable under Section 100 CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Application of Section 100 CPC—requirement of a substantial question of law; limits on interference with concurrent findings of fact. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, subject to their own precedents on Section 100 CPC |
| Follows | Binding application of statutory restriction under Section 100 CPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the High Court cannot interfere in second appeals unless a substantial question of law distinctly arises.
- Clarifies that agreements silent on material terms (such as earnest money) and unsupported by evidence are fatal to claims for refund or specific performance.
- Even in appeals limited to alternative relief (such as refund), strict proof is required; mere admission of an agreement is insufficient if key terms are ambiguous.
- A clear and consistent case theory, backed by documentary evidence, is essential for relief in suits for specific performance or refund of earnest money.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court emphasized the restrictive scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, permitting second appeals only where substantial questions of law are at stake.
- Examined the pleadings and evidence, finding the agreement to sell silent on alleged earnest money of Rs.85,78,000 and lacking cogent evidence for the amounts claimed.
- Noted internal inconsistency in the plaintiff’s case regarding the refund amount sought versus the amount allegedly paid.
- Held that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court’s findings were factual and consistent with the evidence; no error of law was demonstrated.
- Determined that in the face of clear concurrent findings of fact that are supported by record and reasoning, the High Court has no scope for interference.
- Concluded that no substantial question of law arose, warranting dismissal of the second appeal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiff-Appellant):
- Contended that the agreement to sell was admitted; therefore, refund of earnest money was due.
- Asserted error in lower courts’ refusal to grant refund relief.
Respondent (Defendant-Respondent No.1 and Others):
- Disputed rate and terms of sale; denied readiness and willingness of plaintiff to perform contract.
- Asserted that plaintiff did not attend the Registrar’s office on due date.
- Claimed that plaintiff had cancelled the agreement and received his amounts via subsequent writing.
- Defendant-Respondent Nos.3-5: Claimed bona fide purchaser status without notice.
Factual Background
The plaintiff originally owned land that he sold to Defendant No.1. Subsequently, Defendant No.1 allegedly agreed to sell the land back to the plaintiff under an agreement dated 04.12.2007, reaffirmed on 23.06.2008, with alleged earnest money payments, though the agreement was silent on the specific sum. The plaintiff claimed readiness and willingness to perform, but asserted that Defendant No.1 sold the land to others instead. The trial and first appellate courts found crucial terms unproven and dismissed the suit. The second appeal was limited to seeking refund, not specific performance.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 100 CPC was construed narrowly: second appeals are maintainable only on substantial questions of law, not merely to re-examine facts.
- The Court followed the established statutory restriction against interference with concurrent factual findings by trial and first appellate courts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment provided.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations or new guidelines were introduced or elaborated upon in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and applies the established, narrow approach to Section 100 CPC second appeals and the sanctity of concurrent factual findings by lower courts.