RSA No.189 of 1986 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.189 of 1986 Date of Decision: 15.7.2009 Smt. Reeta Kumari ......Appellant Versus Harjit Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Shri G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the the appellant. Shri A.S. Nehra, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby defendants' appeal was partly allowed. The plaintiff is wife of defendant No.1. The marriage between the parties solemnised on 29.8.1973 was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 28.4.1982. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the dowry articles or for recovery of Rs.27,200/-. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff as an indigent person. The learned trial Court, after recording evidence, granted a decree for recovery of Rs.15,000/-, but the learned first Appellate Court, modified the judgment and decree in an appeal filed by the defendants and decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. The cross- RSA No.189 of 1986 (2) objections filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. The primary dispute between the parties is regarding valuation of the dowry articles. The learned first Appellate Court, on the basis of evidence, has returned a finding that valuation of such dowry articles is Rs.10,000/-. It may be possible to take a different view while sitting originally, but since a finding has been returned regarding valuation of the dowry articles, any different valuation would be on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 15-07-2009 ds