Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajender Singh And Others vs Smt.Santosh And Others on 4 October, 2012
RSA No. 3526 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3526 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.10.2012
Rajender Singh and others ........Appellants
versus
Smt.Santosh and others ......... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):
CM No. 9361-C of 2012 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No. 3526 of 2012 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the learned trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellants for recovery of ` 25, 500/- along with interest.
As per the case of the appellants the respondents had taken a loan of ` 25,500/- from them and had duly signed against the bahi entry in RSA No. 3526 of 2012 (O&M) 2 this regard. The learned trial Court,as mentioned above, decreed the suit. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court on a conspectus of the entire evidence held that the appellants had not been able to prove this case and consequently dismissed the suit.
When this appeal was filed, the following questions were proposed:-
i) Whether the findings of the learned courts below suffering from any apparent perversity on the face of it being contrary to law and facts on record?
ii) Whether the judgment and decree of learned Courts below suffer from perversity of approach and misreading of evidence because of ignoring the material piece of evidence having direct impact on the decision of the case?
iii)Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play?
It would be seen that all the aforementioned questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the judgments ands the evidence but has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to render them liable for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 04, 2012 sunita