R.S.A. No. 988 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 988 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.1.2009 Smt. Balbir Kaur and others ....Appellants Versus Swarna Bai and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 988 of 2007 titled Smt. Balbir Kaur and others Vs. Swarna Bai and others and R.S.A. No. 989 of 2007 titled Smt. Balbir Kaur and others Vs. Pasho Bai and others, as common questions of law and fact are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from R.S.A. No. 988 of 2007. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004 and 13.10.2006 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plainitff/respondents for recovery of damages and compensation on account of death of Harjinder Singh stands decreed. The learned Courts below have granted R.S.A. No. 988 of 2007 (O&M) -2- damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.3 lac with interest @ 6% from the date of death till realisation. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence recorded finding of fact that Harjinder Singh and Phuman Singh died due to illegal acts of defendants No. 2 and 3. The learned trial Court also held that plaintiffs were entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3 lac along with interest as referred to above as damages/compensation for causing death of Harjinder Singh. The finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court stands affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised following substantial questions of law for consideration in this appeal: - "1. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below can be sustained as the defendant/appellants were not given adequate opportunity to contest the suit as their evidence was wrongly closed? 2. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence brought on record and thus perverse?" The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence of the defendant/appellants without giving them an opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. He further contends that the evidence brought on record shows that Harjinder Singh and Phuman Singh, in fact, died due to their own negligence, as it was an accident for which the appellant/defendants could not be blamed. R.S.A. No. 988 of 2007 (O&M) -3- However, on consideration of matter, I find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The order passed by the learned Courts below shows that the evidence of appellants was closed after giving them adequate opportunity. Thus no fault can be found with the order nor the question of law as framed can be said to be a substantial question of law. Positive evidence has been brought on record to show that a rod was intentionally placed so as to give electric shock to the deceased and evidence brought on record shows that the same was deliberate act done by defendants No. 2 and 3. The findings are not perverse or outcome of misreading of evidence, to warrant interference. Second substantial question of law as raised also does not arise for consideration by this Court. This Court in regular second appeal cannot reappraise the evidence and come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned trial Court. This appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for considertion by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 23, 2009 R.S.