RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 3092-C of 2009 & RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:13.11.2009 M/s Monarch Industries .....Appellant versus Darshan Kumar and others ..... Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the appellant. **** Ajay Tewari,J.(ORAL) CM No. 3092-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 195 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the sale deed dt. 25.10.1984 on the allegation that one Roop Chand partner at that time had not signed the sale deed and that it is a forged and fabricated document. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the courts below have misread the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dt. 3.09.1991? RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) -2- ii)Whether the supplementary dissolution deed dt. 25.10.1984 is a forged and fabricated document? iii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the principles of res judicata? iv)Whether the courts below have misread the evidence on record? The main issue is with regard to document dt. 25.10.1984 and the same is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the findings of the Courts below but has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such perverse misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. With regard to question No.(i), learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the inquiry ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was only for the limited purpose for ascertaining the right of representation to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, it is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that the said inquiry or the proceedings which may have taken place are completely irrelevant. In my opinion, this is too extreme a position. It must be noticed that the case of the respondent was that the said inquiry was res judicata and that plea had been negatived by the Courts below since even though it may be stated that the said proceedings were not res judicata yet it cannot be said that they have absolutely no value or that they are irrelevant. RSA No. 1077 of 2009(O&M) -3- Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stands disposed of. November 13, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE