RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM No. 3092-C of 2009 &
RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Decision:13.11.2009
M/s Monarch Industries .....Appellant
versus
Darshan Kumar and others ..... Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
Ajay Tewari,J.(ORAL)
CM No. 3092-C of 2009
For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay
of 195 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M)
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent
judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the
appellant challenging the sale deed dt. 25.10.1984 on the
allegation that one Roop Chand partner at that time had not
signed the sale deed and that it is a forged and fabricated
document. The following questions have been proposed:
i) Whether the courts below have misread the order
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court dt. 3.09.1991?
RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) -2-
ii)Whether the supplementary dissolution deed dt.
25.10.1984 is a forged and fabricated document?
iii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the
principles of res judicata?
iv)Whether the courts below have misread the
evidence on record?
The main issue is with regard to document dt.
25.10.1984 and the same is a pure question of fact. Learned
counsel for the appellant has taken me through the findings of
the Courts below but has not been able to persuade me that the
findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are
based on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to be liable
for interference under Section 100 of CPC.
With regard to question No.(i), learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that the inquiry ordered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was only for the limited purpose for ascertaining
the right of representation to prosecute the appeal.
Consequently, it is the case of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the said inquiry or the proceedings which may
have taken place are completely irrelevant.
In my opinion, this is too extreme a position. It must
be noticed that the case of the respondent was that the said
inquiry was res judicata and that plea had been negatived by the
Courts below since even though it may be stated that the said
proceedings were not res judicata yet it cannot be said that they
have absolutely no value or that they are irrelevant.
RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) -3-
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
November 13, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE