R.S.A. No. 1201 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1201 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.1.2009 Bahadur Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Gurdev Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 681-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the questions of law involved in the present regular second appeal. C.M. is allowed and the questions of law are ordered to be placed on record. R.S.A. No. 1201 of 2005 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 24.9.2002 and 2.9.2004 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants for recorvery R.S.A. No. 1201 of 2005 (O&M) -2- of dowry articles as per Annexure “A” with the suit, of the value of Rs.1,25,833/- has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit on the plea that marriage of their daughter was solemnised with defendant No. 3 on 27.9.1998 and at the time of marriage, the dowry articles mentioned in list Annexure “A” with the suit were entrusted to defendants No. 1 to 3, which were said to have been illegally detained by them even though the daughter of the plaintiff/appellants was murdered by defendant/respondents. It was also pleaded that a case vide FIR No. 208 dated 18.5.1999 has been registered against the defendant/respondents. The suit was contested. Besides preliminary objections, averments made on merits were also denied. It was denied that any dowry articles were handed over to the respondent/defendants. Plea was also taken that the case registered against the defendant/respondents was false and that false and frivolous bills and cash memos have been prepared to maintain the present suit. On pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: - “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of dowry articles or the price thereof against the defendant as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 4. Relief. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding R.S.A. No. 1201 of 2005 (O&M) -3- of fact that the plaintiff/appellants failed to prove the delivery of the dowry articles to the defendant/respondents. Even the documentary evidence led could not be read in evidence as the plaintiff/appellants failed to get the documents exhibited by proving in accordance with law. The Courts below held that in absence of proof of entrustment of dowry articles the suit deserved to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently contends that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are outcome of mis-reading of evidence inasmuch as the plaintiffs have proved on record the list mark “A” showing the entrustment of dowry articles, which was supported by the bills. The plea raised is that, though the documents were marked still the learned Courts were required to look into those documents. The learned counsel for the appellants further contends that the learned Courts below were wrong in rejecting the bills on account of discrepancies. On cosideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence in support of claim as the documents produced were only "marked" and were not got proved in accordance with law, therefore, the findings of the learned Courts below cannot be interfered with. Thus, the learned Courts below were right in holding that there was no admissible evidence on record in support of the case set up by the plaintiffs. This Court cannot re-appraise the evidence to come to a R.S.A. No. 1201 of 2005 (O&M) -4- different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned Courts below, on apreciation of evidence unless it is outcome of misreading or finding is perverse. The substantial questions of law as framed do not arise for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 16, 2009 R.S.