R.S.A No. 3720 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3720 of 2008 Date of decision : August 25, 2009 Food Corporation of India, ...... Appellant (s) v. M/S Malhi and Company & others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Navodev Yadav, Advocate for Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of risk and cost amounts from the respondents. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside while not considering oral as well as documentary evidence led by the appellant-plaintiff ? (ii) Whether the learned trial Court as well as the learned Ist appellate Court were justified in believing the case of the respondent-defendants in the absence of reliable evidence on the point of non-execution of work R.S.A No. 3720 of 2008 ::2:: as per the contract agreement, resulting in denial of relief in the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff ? (iii) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Courts below regarding concealment of facts as well as non-granting of adequate opportunity before terminating the contract to the respondent/defendants are perverse being based on selective misreading/misleading of evidence ? (iv) Whether both the Courts below have misread and wrongly interpreted Section 17(2) of the Indian Contract Act, resulting into miscarriage of justice ? (v) Whether the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside for wrongly relying on the statement of PW/4 which was inadmissible as per the mandate of the Indian Evidence Act having not been proved on record ?” It would be seen that questions No. (i) to (iii) and (v) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded by the Courts below are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. No arguments have been addressed on question No. (iv). Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 25, 2009. JUDGE `kk'