Dismissed

Ram Chand v. Kashmiri Lal

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2010RSA/3149/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil appeal regarding a suit for recovery, the single-judge High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held the appellant failed to establish the respondent was a moneylender by business and found no substantial question of law regarding the documents. All proposed questions were rejected.

What did the court decide?

The appeal as well as the application for stay were dismissed with no costs.

Ram Chand Vs Kashmiri Lal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

RSA No. 3149 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 3149 of 2009 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: January 11 , 2010

Ram Chand

...... Appellant

Versus

Kashmiri Lal

...... Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr. N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶18

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

¶19

the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery.

¶20

The following substantial questions have been proposed:-

¶21

i) Whether the impugned judgments and decree under appeal are against legal position and facts and needs reconsideration?

¶22

ii)Whether findings of trial court as well as Appellate Court are erroneous and non-speaking on the point of consideration passed through Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and require intervention of Hon'ble Court?

¶23

iii)Whether the respondent can lend money to people without having license to do so?

¶24

iv)Whether Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 require interpretation and interpretation of the document is substantial question of law?

¶25

RSA No. 3149 of 2009 (O&M)

¶26

¶27

Question No. (i) is a pure question of fact. Questions No. (ii) and (iv) relate to the pronote and the receipt. Both the Courts have held that the said documents were proved by the respondent. As regards question No. (iii), both the Courts have held that appellant has not been able to establish that the respondent is a moneylender by business.

¶28

Consequently holding all the questions proposed above against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs.

¶29

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶30

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶31

January 11, 2010 sunita

Ram Chand v. Kashmiri Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chand v. Kashmiri Lal

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

Baljit Kaur Vs Jeet Singh

Gurdial Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anor.

Baljit Vs State of Haryana

Nagpur Golden Transport Co. Vs Suresh Mehra and Ors.

Khushal Singh Vs State Bank of Patiala and Anr.

Lakshmi Chand and Others Vs Ganga Devi and Others