Dismissed

Siri Ram v. Hoshiar Singh

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Aug 2017RSA/422/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal challenging a dismissal of a compensation suit for injuries sustained during a property dispute, the Court held that ambiguous medical evidence and witness statements could not sustain the plaintiffs' claim, distinguishing the cited authority as facts in this case explained a minor scuffle upon excavation despite a stay order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; parties bear their own costs.

Siri Ram Vs Hoshiar Singh — Cheating and Forgery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

RSA No. 422 of 2005 Reserved on: 31.07.2017 Decided on: 16.08.2017

¶3

__________________________________________________________ Siri Ram …..Appellant Versus Hoshiar Singh and others ……Respondents

¶4

___________________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

¶5

For the appellant : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 6 : Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. None for respondents No. 7(a), 7(b) and 8, though served.

¶6

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge

¶7

The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 18.05.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 92/13 of 2004-2001, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 16.08.2001, passed by the then sub-Judge, 1^st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in case No. 63/1 of 1993, was affirmed.

¶8

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶9

¶10

Briefly, the key facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiff”), has maintained a suit for recovery of ` 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) as compensation against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be called as “the defendants”) on the ground that on 18.02.1992, when plaintiffs Siri Ram and

¶11

Garhk Singh were in their courtyard at Village Panol, the defendants came their and gave beatings to the plaintiffs, due to which, the plaintiffs sustained injuries. After the said occurrence, the plaintiffs were immediately taken to hospital at Ghumarwin for their medical treatment, wherefrom they were referred to District hospital, Bilaspur. After medical examination, it was found that plaintiff No. 1, Siri Ram has lost his eye sight and also got fracture in his left arm, whereas plaintiff No. 2, Garhk Singh has suffered grievous injuries. Further plaintiff No. 1, remained hospitalized w.e.f. 18.02.1992 to 05.04.1992, and spent huge amount on their medical treatment. Hence, plaintiff No. 1, has been claiming ` 1,90,000/- (Rupees one lac and ninety thousand)

¶12

¶13

as compensation, whereas plaintiff No. 2, Garhk Singh, is claiming for ` 10,000/(Rupees ten thousand), as compensation from the defendants.

¶14

The defendants, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiffs by taking preliminary objections, viz., maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it has been averred that the defendants have

¶15

not given beatings to the plaintiffs, in fact plaintiffs themselves started excavation of foundation in their land, due to this reason scuffle took place between the parties and plaintiff, Siri Ram might have fallen and sustained injuries. Hence suit of the plaintiffs deserve dismissal.

¶16

The learned Trial Court on 02.11.1994 framed the

¶17

following issues for determination and adjudication:

¶18

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of Rs. 2 lac, as prayed for? OPP

¶19

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

¶20

3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit by their act and conduct? OPD

¶21

4. Relief.”

¶22

¶23

After deciding issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs

¶24

and issues No. 2 & 3 against the defendants, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court was upheld. Hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:

¶25

“1. Whether both the Courts below have misinterpreted Ex. PW-9 and Ex. PW-9/A, especially when the factum of scuffle was admitted by the defendants/respondents?”

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued

¶27

that the statement of PW-9, coupled with MLC, Ext. PW-9/A, shows that the injuries were caused to the plaintiffs by the defendants and the learned Court below after misreading, Ext. PW-9/A and the evidence, which has come on record, passed the impugned judgment and decree, which is required to be set aside and suit of the plaintiffs is required to be decreed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there are material contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff and other

¶28

¶29

witnesses and further the defendants have been acquitted by the learned Court below in a criminal case, ultimately that order of acquittal has attained finality, thus the present appeal is without merits and deserves dismissal. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Court below has passed its findings on the ground that the learned Criminal Court has acquitted the accused person. The learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the findings of the learned Criminal Courts are not bindings on the learned Civil Courts and to establish this fact, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Judgment, AIR 1971, Supreme Court, 1244 titled as

¶30

M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another vs. Union of

¶31

India and others .

¶32

In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully.

¶33

PW-1, Ram Chandra, Driver of the taxi, has deposed that he charged ` 350/- from the plaintiffs for taking them to the Hospital. He has admitted his signature on Ext. PW-1/A.

¶34

¶35

PW-2, Dr. C.L. Soni, has proved on record the

¶36

cash memos, Ext. PW-2/A to Ext. PW-2/P, which he had issued to the plaintiffs. He has deposed that he is a Proprietor of Soni Medical Store. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has given medicines to the plaintiffs on the basis of prescription slips, however he cannot tell the name of Doctor, who has prescribed the medicines.

¶37

PW-3, Medical Practioner, Ghumarwin, has deposed that he is partner of Shankar Medical Store, Ghumarwin and Gautam Medical Store, belongs to his sister. He has further deposed that as per prescription slips, he had given medicines to the plaintiffs and issued cash memos, Ext. PW-3/1 to Ext. PW-3/10. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he cannot say, which Doctor has prescribed the medicines.

¶38

PW-4, Dr. Rama Singh, has deposed that she conducted x-rays of the plaintiff and one another person on 19.02.1992 and there was fracture on the forearm of plaintiff No. 1. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the injuries on the person of the plaintiffs are possible by fall due to own body weight.

¶39

¶40

PW-5, plaintiff, Siri Ram, has deposed that on

¶41

18.02.1992, he was taking tea in the courtyard and Baldev and Jagdish were also sitting there, at the same time Ranjit came there and spitted upon him and when he resisted the same, Ranjit, as well as other defendants, started beating him with rod and sticks, due to which, he received injuries on his eye. He has further deposed that his arm was got fractured and his son had also received injuries. He has further stated that earlier he was working as carpenter, however after receiving the injuries, he cannot do any work. He has further deposed that he remained admitted in the Hospital for 40-41 days, whereas his son remained hospitalized for 5-7 days. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on his complaint, criminal case was registered against the defendants, however they were acquitted and thereafter an appeal against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. He has further deposed that he never given any statement before the Court that he was working as carpenter. He has admitted that when the quarrel has taken place, there was stay order passed by the Court in favour of the defendants.

¶42

¶43

He has denied that in spite of stay order, he was going on with the construction. He has further denied that he has not

¶44

spent ` 2,00,000/- on his, as well as his son’s treatment. 13. PW-6, Jagdish and PW-7, Baldev Singh, both these witnesses in their examination-in-chief had deposed that on 18.02.1992, they alongwith plaintiff were sitting in the courtyard, at about 9-10:00 a.m., Ranjit Singh came there and spitted upon the plaintiff and when plaintiff resisted the same, all the defendants equipped with sticks and iron rods, came there and started beating the plaintiffs, due to which the plaintiffs sustained injuries and immediately after the said occurrence, the plaintiffs were taken to the Hospital at Ghumarwin. They further deposed that they are also witnesses in criminal case, registered against the defendants regarding the said occurrence. PW-6 has denied portion A to A of Ext. PA of the statement. Similarly, PW-7 has also denied portion A to A and B to B of Ext. PB of the statement.

¶45

The defendant, Piar Singh has appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and deposed that stay order was issued by the Civil Court, whereby the plaintiffs were

¶46

¶47

restrained from raising any construction, however, despite stay order, the plaintiff started digging foundation and when the defendants resisted them from raising construction, a scuffle took place between the parties and the plaintiffs while running away had fallen down on the construction material and received injuries.

¶48

Now coming to the statements of PW-6 and PW7, recorded before the learned ACJM, Ghumarwin, wherein PW-7, Baldev Singh, has stated that on 18.02.1992, he was in the courtyard of the plaintiffs. However, PW-7, in his statement, Ext. PB, in portion A to A, has categorically stated that when he reached on the spot, the defendants

¶49

were asking the plaintiffs not to dig foundation and plaintiff No. 1 was insisting that he would dig foundation at the same place. In portion B to B, PW-7 has stated that the quarrel had already took place before he reached on the spot and he cannot say as to how plaintiff No. 1 had fallen down. Taking into consideration the statement of PW-7, it is clear that he has not witnessed the occurrence and he reached on the spot after the occurrence had already taken place. As far as, PW-6 is concerned, he is close

¶50

10 -

¶51

relative of the plaintiffs and perusal of Ext. PA, portion A to A shows that scuffle took place when the plaintiffs started digging foundation on the spot.

¶52

Now coming to MLC, Ext. PW-9/A, though as per the Doctor the plaintiff has received injuries, however whether these injuries were received, as mentioned in MLC, Ext. PW-9/A, due to defendants or otherwise by way of fall, is a moot question. As per the plaintiffs, PW-6 and PW-7 have witnessed the whole occurrence, however PW-7 in his statement has categorically stated that no occurrence took place in his presence. It is also apparent from the facts of the case that the defendants had procured stay order from

¶53

the Civil Court, however despite stay order, the plaintiffs started construction work on the spot. This fact is also clear from the statement of PW-6, made before the learned ACJM that a scuffle took place, when the plaintiffs started digging foundation on the spot. On the other hand, as per the statement of PW-7 made before the learned ACJM, the plaintiff No. 1 was lying inside the foundation. Therefore, it is obvious from the record that a minor scuffle took place between the parties, when the plaintiffs started digging

¶54

11 -

¶55

foundation on the spot, despite stay order issued by the Civil Court.

¶56

After taking into consideration the statements of PW-6 and PW-7, it is clear that evidence of these witnesses is an improvement to the statements they had already made in the criminal case and, therefore, the same is not trustworthy. Further PW-6 is the close relative of the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, this Court finds that learned Court below has given its findings only after taking into consideration the findings of the learned Criminal Court while deciding the case, however the statements of the witnesses are considered to its true perspective. So, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

¶57

In these circumstance, this Court finds that the statement of PW-9, is rightly appreciated by the learned Court below to its true perspective and document, Ext. PW9/A, is correctly interpreted. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. 1 is answered accordingly.

¶58

The net result of the above discussion is that the instant appeal, sans merits, deserves dismissal and is

¶59

12 -

¶60

dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their

¶61

own costs.

¶62

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶63

also stand(s) disposed of.

¶64

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

¶65

16^th August, 2017

¶66

(raman)

Siri Ram v. Hoshiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siri Ram v. Hoshiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishori Lal Vs Naresh Vaidya

Pooja Rani Vs State of Hp

Leelawati Vs Rama Devi

NTPC Vs Devi Raj

Sarla Kumari Vs Dumnu Devi

NTPC Vs Leela Nand