RSA No.3809 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.3809 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 30.08.2010 **** Vasu Mittra Satyarthi . . . . Appellant VS. R.N. Bajaj and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. Both the Courts below have dismissed the petition/suit of the plaintiff in which he had sought custody of minor namely, Jishnu under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). De hors the findings recorded by the Courts below on issues No.1, issue No.2 has been decided against the plaintiff concurrently to the effect that the petition/suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It was held that the minor is studying at Noida and is living with her mother in New Delhi, therefore, the Court at Faridabad had no jurisdiction and the petition/suit was not maintainable. The plaintiff has only challenged finding on issue No.1 and has not touched finding on issue No.2, which is apparent even from the substantial question of law framed in the memo of appeal in which question pertaining to finding on issue No.2 is conspicuous by its absence. In fact learned counsel for the plaintiff has failed to raise any argument much RSA No.3809 of 2009 -2- less meaningful against the finding recorded by both the Courts below on issue No.2. Hence, no substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is involved in this appeal to reverse the finding recorded by the Courts below on issue No.2 by which the petition/suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed as not maintainable. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 30, 2010 JUDGE Vivek