Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh v. Pargat Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2009RSA/2662/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order of Punjab & Haryana HC dismissing an appeal against a decree of Rs. 40,000. The court held that the appellant failed to show findings were based on no evidence or misreading to warrant interference under Section 100 C.P.C., along with pending questions on proof of pronote and jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Pargat Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RSA No. 2662 of 2007 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM Nos. 7442-C and 7443-C of 2007 and RSA 2662 of 2007 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: September 16, 2009

Sukhdev Singh

...... Appellant

Versus

Pargat Singh

...... Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr.N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ****

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶17

CM No. 7443-C of 2007

¶18

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is

¶19

allowed.

¶20

CM No. 7442-C of 2007

¶21

Despite service none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Consequently this application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal is allowed.

¶22

RSA 2662 of 2007

¶23

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovering an amount of Rs. 40,000/- plus interest on the basis of pronote and receipt.

¶24

RSA No. 2662 of 2007 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

The following questions have been proposed:-

¶27

1. Whether there is total misreading of the facts evidence by the learned courts below while ignoring the relevant and material piece of oral as well as documentary evidence on record and which is serious error in law having vitiating effect on the findings?

¶28

1. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2003 have been proved on the record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act?

¶29

1. Whether the judgments and decrees of both the courts are sustainable in the eyes of law while deciding the issues together and no separate findings have been given on each and every issue?

¶30

1. Whether grave and manifest injustice is being done to the appellants?

¶31

It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C.

¶32

Consequently the appeal as well as the application for stay are

¶33

dismissed. No costs.

¶34

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶35

September 16, 2009 sunita

Sukhdev Singh v. Pargat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. Pargat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subodh Kumar and Ors. Vs Shanti Devi and Ors.

Harpinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Harpinder Kaur and Ors. Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Devinder Nath Sharma and Ors.

Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda Vs Sushil Kumar Bedi

Sardul Singh and Others Vs M C Kalanwali and Others