IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2461 of 1987 Date of decision: 13.05.2013 Sarwan Singh and others ....Appellants vs. Smt. Harbans Kaur @ Banso and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sarwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ferry Sofat, Advocate for the respondents. ....... T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral): On account of death of Shangara Singh, pursuant to the injuries received by him at the hands of the appellants, the respondents filed a suit for recovery of `30,000/- as damages. The suit stands decreed by both the Courts below for the aforementioned amount and the appellants held entitled to recover the same alongwith interest. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before this Court by way of second appeal. Having heard counsel for the parties, I find that the plaintiffs have been able to prove that it were the appellants who had caused injuries to Shangara Singh as a result of which, his life was snuffed out and the plaintiffs-respondents losing their bread-earner. Certain discrepancies have been pointed out by counsel for the RSA No.2461 of 1987 -2- appellants, but this Court is of the view that they are so trivial in nature that no benefit can be extended of the same to the appellants. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are not open to challenge and, that too, in a second appeal. Under Section 100 CPC, second appeal is maintainable only if, some substantial question of law is involved. On perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below and hearing counsel for the parties, the Court is of the firm view that no substantial question of law arises for determination. It may also be noticed that the decree passed in favour of his clients stands satisfied, as stated by counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. Resultantly, the present appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. (T.P.S. MANN) 13.05.2013 JUDGE sonia g.