R.S.A No. 736 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 736 of 2007 Date of decision : November 18, 2008 Kishan Kumar Jindal ...... Appellant. through Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate v. Gurjinder Singh, ...... Respondent through Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** 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 Rs.38,437/- on account of pending payments for having constructed the house of the appellant. The learned lower appellate Court found as a fact that the respondent did the work of construction of the house of the appellant. It further found that the plea raised by the appellant that in fact, the respondent had not completed the work and that he had to get the work completed from some other person to whom an amount of Rs.25,000/- had been paid, could not be established. The appellant also could not establish the plea that he had paid Rs.85,000/- to the respondent and not Rs.70,000/-. R.S.A No. 736 of 2007 ::2:: Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that these findings of fact are perverse. He has, however, not been able to deny that the respondent had produced Roshan Singh-PW2 in support of his case. Thus, the contention that the findings are perverse or that they do not arise from the material on record cannot be upheld. I, therefore, hold that the question of law proposed in this appeal does not arise. The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 18 , 2008. JUDGE `kk'