1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh[High Court] dated 09.02.2017 passed in RSA No. 5089/2016.

3. The appellants instituted Original Suit No. 271/2006 for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 20.01.1993 (Ex. P-1) In the suit, amongst others, an issue was struck as regards existence /validity of the sale agreement. After examining the matter in detail and upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court found that there was no valid agreement for sale based on which the suit for specific performance was instituted. This finding came to be affirmed by the First Appellate Court after considering the facts and circumstances borne out from the evidence on record. The relevant portion of first appellate court judgment is extracted below:

                   "In view of above detailed discussion this court is of the opinion that the learned trial court examined each and every limb of the present litigation and rightly answered issue no.1 against the plaintiffs holding that agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) is not valid and genuine document on the basis of which they can put forward their claim for specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of the suit land."

4. The Second Appellate Court did not find a good reason to disturb the said finding and the appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.

5. There were other issues also, such as whether the suit was barred by limitation or whether it was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC").

Those issues were also decided against the plaintiffs by trial court as well as first appellate court.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that issues relating to limitation and whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC are questions of law which have been wrongly decided by the courts below. However, on the question of proving a valid agreement for sale, based on which the suit for specific performance was instituted, being a question of fact, the learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that the finding of the three courts below on the said issue is vitiated in any manner.

7. In such circumstances, without going into the other questions, while observing that no perversity could be pointed out in the concurrent findings of the courts below that plaintiffs failed to prove existence of a valid agreement for sale, we do not find a good reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.