CM No.1530-C of 2010 and ::1:: RSA No.551 of 2010 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1530-C of 2010 and RSA No.551 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 07.09.2010 Om Parkash .. Appellant. Versus Vinod Garg and another. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.R.K.Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.1530-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, same stands allowed and the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.551 of 2010 (O & M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was partly decreed. The appellant had filed the instant suit claiming that he had done some labour work for the respondents and that neither he had been paid for the work but his implements had also been illegally retained by them causing loss to him. Consequently, he prayed for an amount of Rs.91,000/- odd. As mentioned above, the suit was partly decreed. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the appellant-plaintiff has proved that he worked for the respondents upto 28.11.2000. In the present appeal, the only ground urged by the CM No.1530-C of 2010 and ::2:: RSA No.551 of 2010 (O & M) learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No.1 had admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant had worked with them till 05.12.2000. He prays that in these circumstances, the findings of the Courts below that the appellant had worked only till 28.11.2000 is clearly wrong. However, I find that as per the case of the appellant-plaintiff himself, dispute had arisen between him and the respondents on 01.12.2000. Once this is so, it is inconceivable that the appellant would have worked till 05.12.2000. Second argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that his implements have not been returned. In this connection, both the Courts below have found that neither the appellant has given the details of the implements nor he has mentioned where they were lying. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the findings of the Courts below that the appellant is not entitled to any implement. Consequently, it has to be held that the learned counsel has not been able to show that these concurrent findings of fact are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to make them liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. No other point has been argued. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) September 07, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet