High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt. Balbir Kaur vs The Sub Post Master on 13 January, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Balbir Kaur vs The Sub Post Master on 13 January, 2009
Regular Second Appeal No. 3257 of 2008                    1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                   Regular Second Appeal No. 3257 of 2008 (O&M)
                   Date of Decision: 13.1.2009
                                     ***

Smt. Balbir Kaur
                                                        ..APPELLANT

            VS.


The Sub Post Master, Barnala & Ors.
                                                       ..RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

Present:-   Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate.
            ***

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit seeking declaration in
respect of 6 Indira Vikas Patras (hereinafter referred to as IVPs, for brevity)
amounting to Rs.5000/- each being pertaining to her and also for mandatory
injunction for directing the defendant-respondents to make the payment of
the aforesaid IVPs to her along with interest.

Both the Courts below disbelieved the plaintiff and dismissed
her suit as well as her appeal. Hence this regular second appeal.

It is not disputed that IVPs in question were issued from a Sub
Post Office Nogli under Head Office Rampur Bushanar (Himachal Pradesh)
vide registration No.28 of 13.19.1993, for the loss of which DDR No.11
dated 17.4.1999 was got lodged by one Vidya Dutt Bhardwaj. The plaintiff
as per her own admission never visited Nogli (H.P.) and she failed to
satisfactorily explain as to how she came into possession of the aforesaid
IVPs. The version propounded by her of being in possession of aforesaid
IVPs by way of purchase from one Sahil of Panchkula was disbelieved on
account of non-examination of the said person. Since the plaintiff failed to
prove the ownership of the IVPs in question, the Courts below have rightly
dismissed her suit. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent
Regular Second Appeal No. 3257 of 2008 2

findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question
of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The
appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in
limine.

(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
January 13,2009
Jiten