RSA No.377 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.377 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 26.03.2010 Harminder Kaur .. Appellant-Plaintiff Versus Amrik Singh .. Respondent-defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for recovery on the basis of a cheque which was signed by the appellant. The case of the appellant was that in fact the entire amount had been paid and that the respondent had misused the signed cheque which had been given to him by way of security. Both the Courts below have on fact, have held that the appellant has not been able to prove these assertions and have consequently decreed the suit. Following questions have been proposed:- (a) Whether the courts below have committed an illegality in not taking into consideration Ex.DW-1, which was in the handwriting of the plaintiff/respondent and on which there was no cross-examination by the plaintiff ? (b) Whether the courts below have misread the RSA No.377 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: evidence on record to the effect that plaintiff advanced only Rs.30,000/- @ 5% per annum. (c) Whether the courts below have erred in not holding that the amount of Rs.30,000/- was returned alongwith interest to the plaintiff. It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. The Courts below have taken into consideration the document Ex.DW-1. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently, this appeal as well as Stay Application are dismissed. No costs. March 26, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE