RSA No.1719 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1719 of 2010 Date of decision : 14-10-2010 Karnail Kaur and others .... Appellants VERSUS Nishan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's Second Appeal challenging the decrees of the Courts below. A decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 26.04.1993 till the date of passing of the decree with future interest @6% per annum was passed against the appellant by the Trial Court. The aforesaid decree was affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The instant appeal came up before this Court on 3.5.2010 and the following order was passed:- "Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. ---- CM No.5200-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.1719 of 2010 -2- CM No.5201-C of 2010 C.M. is allowed. Annexure A-1 is taken on record. RSA No.1719 of 2010 (O&M) There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment but learned counsel for the appellants states that he is willing to settle the matter with the respondents by adhering to the agreement provided some indulgence is shown to him regarding the interest component. Notice of motion only to this limited extent for 20.07.2010. (MAHESH GROVER) 3.5.2010 JUDGE" Again on 10.09.2010 the following order was passed:- "RSA No.1719 of 2010 Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. --- Vide order dated 3.5.2010, this Court had found that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment, however, on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he was willing to settle the matter with the respondents, notice of motion was issued only to that limited extent for 20.07.2010. On 20.07.2010, it was found that service had not been effected upon the respondents as they were not found residing at the given address. Therefore, on that day, this Court had ordered that the respondents be summoned again on furnishing of their correct address for today. Today when the case has been taken up, it is revealed from the Office report that the appellant has failed to furnish the correct addresses of the respondents. RSA No.1719 of 2010 -3- From the aforesaid conduct of the appellant, it seems that his bona fide to settle the matter as per the submission made before this Court on 3.5.2010 is doubtful. However, in the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to him to serve the respondents for 20.9.2010 by way of dasti only. Additionally, the appellant is at liberty to serve the respondents through their counsel who is representing them in the execution proceedings, stated to be pending. September 10, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE" On 28.09.2010 on the offer of respondents the following order was passed:- "RSA No.1719 of 2010 Present: Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate, for Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocte, for the appellant. Mr. V.M. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted before this Court that there are two litigation pending between the parties and on account of both the litigations arising out of the same agreement, the respondents are agreed to forego an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Counsel for the appellant seeks short adjournment to enable him to get the instructions. List on 14.10.2010. Be shown in the urgent list. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE September 28, 2010" RSA No.1719 of 2010 -4- Today, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has stated that a total sum of Rs.3,53,000/- is due against the appellants as principal amount in both the litigations between the parties and appellants are ready to make the payment of the aforesaid amount along with interest @6% from the date it has become due in three equal instalments. However, counsel for the respondents has again submitted that his offer is only to forego an amount of Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the offer given by the appellants is not acceptable. In view of the stand taken by counsel for the parties, amicable settlement is not possible. This Court had already recorded a finding vide order dated 3.05.2010 that there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 14-10-2010 JUDGE manju