R.S.A No. 2520 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2520 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : November 17, 2009 Smt. Gurmit Kaur, ...... Appellant (s) v. Gurnam singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S.Guliani, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the sale deed allegedly executed by her in favour of the respondent. The allegations, made in the plaint, are that the thumb impressions of the appellant were obtained by fraud on the pretext that they were required for letting out the premises in dispute. The lower appellate R.S.A No. 2520 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: Court primarily held against the appellant, since she never appeared in the witness box to depose regarding the fraud committed with her. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the suit filed by the appellant is well within the period of limitation ? b) Whether the onus to prove the sale deed has been rightly discharged by the respondent ? c) Whether there can be any sale deed without passing of consideration ? d) Whether the respondent being in fiduciary relationship can get the sale deed executed with regard to an open land, whereas 5 shops have been constructed by the husband of the appellant ? e) Whether the suit of the appellant could be dismissed by the learned lower Court on the basis of the contradictory stand taken by the respondent in his written statement as well as in the evidence ?” It would be seen that there is no question regarding the finding of the lower appellate Court based on the non appearance of the appellant in support of her own case. In these circumstances, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be either based on no evidence or on the basis of such misreading evidence so as to render so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the C.P.C. Once it is held that the plea of fraud set up by the appellant could not be established, the questions proposed do not arise. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the R.S.A No. 2520 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 17, 2009. JUDGE `kk'