RSA No. 993 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 993 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 05 , 2010 Jaswant Singh ...... Appellant Versus Suraj Bhan and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to return some gold which was given to him for making into ornaments and which had not been returned. The respondents filed the suit on the basis of two receipts admittedly executed by the appellant. In reply the case of the appellant was that in fact only half the quantity(represented by the first receipt) was actually given to the appellant for making into ornaments. Thereafter respondent came to him and stated that he had lost the receipt and that is why the second receipt was issued. Further, the case of the appellant is that for the half amount of gold which had allegedly been given to him he had RSA No. 993 of 2010(O&M) 2 made the ornaments and returned them to the respondents. Consequently the appellant denied his liability to give anything to the respondents. Another plea which was taken was that the suit for mandatory injunction did not lie. It is not disputed that at one stage the respondents fixed the then prevalent value of the gold as Court fee. Both the Courts below, in view of the documentary evidence as also in view of the omission of the appellant to even examine the person who had allegedly executed the second receipt, decreed the suit of the respondents. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse and based on non evidence? b) Whether when there is a breach of contract then a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable? c) Whether the suit is barred under Section 41(3) and (h) & Section 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act? d) Whether the prayer for additional evidence has been wrongly disallowed by the Ist Appellate Court? e) Whether the decree is ambiguous and involves continuous performance of duty as ell as against the interim order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the civil court(trial court)? The main question which has been argued by learned counsel is question No. (a) which is a pure question of fact. In view of the arguments raised above I am not persuaded to hold that this finding of fact is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. As regards questions No. (b) and (c), in my opinion, once in view of the objection of the appellant, the respondents affixed the ad valorem Court fee (on the basis of the then prevalent market price of gold) these questions do not arise. As regards question No.(d), the additional evidence sought to be adduced by RSA No. 993 of 2010(O&M) 3 the appellant was the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case which had been lodged by the respondents with respect to the same transaction. In my opinion that judgment in any case would not have binding effect on the Civil Court since the standard of proof in a criminal trial is much higher than that which is required for a Civil trial. As regards question No. (e) the decree which has been passed is directing the appellant either to return the amount of gold or the prevalent price as on the date of payment. In my opinion there is no ambiguity in the decree. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 05, 2010 sunita