Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 28 August, 2009

RSA No. 4291 of 2008(O&M)            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                         CHANDIGARH

                               RSA No. 4291 of 2008 (O&M)

                               Date of Decision: August 28, 2009


Sukhdev Singh                                          ...... Appellant


      Versus

State of Haryana and others                            ...... Respondents


Coram:      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

Present:    Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana.
                 ****

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.

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the

cancellation of contract and demand for recovery. Both the Courts have

dismissed the suit of the plaintiff since he did not lead any evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on the date when the

evidence of the appellant was closed by court order he was admitted in

hospital and, therefore, one date should have been granted. There is,

however,nothing to support this assertion.

The following questions have been proposed:-

i) Whether both the courts below have returned the findings
contrary to the evidence on record?

ii) Whether the appellant was not entitled to lead his evidence
RSA No. 4291 of 2008(O&M) 2

after recovering from ailments?

iii)Whether the delay cannot be condoned where the
appellant/plaintiff was pursing a remedy which was
subsequently held to be not maintainable?

iv)Whether both the courts below have misread the evidence
and failed tog apply its judicious mind to the facts,
circumstances of the case?

The only question which arises is question No. (ii) and in

regard to that, I have also noticed that no material was placed on record by

the appellant to substantiate that on the date the evidence was closed he

was admitted in hospital. Consequently I hold question No. (ii) against the

appellant. Questions No. (i), (iii) and (iv) do not arise.

Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.

Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE

August 28, 2009
sunita