IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 633 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:14.11. 2008 Sardar Gurmukh Singh ...... Appellant Versus Amar Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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? Present: Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 99,000/-. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the respondents had proved the payment of money to the appellant by way of cheque and consequently decreed the suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that due to negligence of the counsel the affidavit of the appellant which had been duly executed was not placed on the trial court file and thus the appellant was deprived of the benefit of having led any evidence. The learned lower Appellate Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 41 rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence by a separate order dated RSA No. 633 of 2007 -2- 26.10.2006 which has been annexed with this appeal. A perusal of the order reveals that he learned lower Appellate Court has exhaustively considered all the facts mentioned in the application as well as the law on the subject and has declined the same by passing a well considered order. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below to evidence the payment of the amount of Rs. 99,000/- to the appellant are either perverse or cannot be held to be arising from the evidence led before both the Courts or that the order of the learned lower Appellate Court rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is illegal and erroneous. In this view of the matter I decide the questions of law proposed against the appellant. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 14, 2008 sunita