Mehal Singh And Others vs Hardeep Singh And Others on 7 July, 2009

R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M)                                        ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                       R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M)
                                       Date of decision : July 07, 2009


Mehal Singh and others,

                                             ...... Appellant (s)

                          v.

Hardeep Singh and others,
                                             ...... Respondent(s)

                                ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. Charan Jit Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.

Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the respondents.

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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)

C.M No.9512-C of 2006

No reply has been filed to this application.

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and

the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

R.S.A No.3747 of 2006

This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of

the Courts below. The dispute centers around the issue whether respondents

No.3 and 4 are sons of Veero. This is essentially a question of fact.
R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M) ::2::

Counsel for the appellants has proposed the following substantial questions

of law :-

” a) Whether there is complete misreading and non

reading of evidence on record and also of the pleadings

of the parties ?

b) Whether the suit was bad for non impleading Smt.

Tej Kaur widow of Karam Singh who was alive at the

time of filing the suit ?

c) Whether declaration and injunction prayed can be

granted without recording categorical finding reading the

fact that plaintiff no.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased

Veero specifically when it admitted by Mohinder Singh

remarried after the death of Veero ?”

Questions No.(a) and (c) are pure questions of fact. I have not

been persuaded to hold that the finding thereon is either based on no

evidence or based on such a misreading of the evidence as to render the

same completely perverted. As regards question No.(b), counsel for the

appellants is not in a position to deny that this issue was never raked up by

the appellants in their written statement and that this question of law and

fact, thus, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to

costs.

                                           ( AJAY TEWARI               )
July 07, 2009.                                  JUDGE
`kk'

R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M) ::3::