RSA No.2660 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2660 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 21, 2009 Rajni and another ...... Appellants Versus Binni Aggarwal ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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 judgment of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the plaintiff has been partly dismissed ( with respect to Rs. 79,400/-). The respondent had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,38,000/-which had allegedly been taken as a loan by the father of the appellant. In his written statement the appellant had denied any transaction either of the loan or of repayment of interest. On a conspectus of the entire evidence the trial court decreed the suit in toto. However, as noticed above, the learned lower Appellate Court after taking into consideration certain payments made by the appellant held that the appellant was liable to pay only Rs. 79,400/-. RSA No.2660 of 2009 2 Learned counsel has proposed the following questions:- i) Whether the suit is within limitation? ii)Whether the non-appearance of the plaintiff draws adverse inference against him? iii)Whether the courts below have misread the evidence and passed the judgment perverse and illegal and against the facts proved on record? As regards question No. (i) both the courts below have found as a fact that by making payment of interest the appellant had himself extended the period of limitation. With regard to question No. (ii) it cannot be held that the absence of the plaintiff shall lead the court to draw an adverse inference against her. As regards question No. (iii) the same is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of the courts below are either based on no evidence or based on such a misreading of the evidence so as to render them perverse. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 21, 2009 sunita