RSA No.1776 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1776 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 07, 2009 Jasinderjit Singh and another ...........Appellants Versus Rattan Kaur and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.S.Thind Advocate for the Appellants. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for damages, as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2.The brief facts of the case of the appellants/plaintiffs as set out in the plaint are that they possess huge property in their village, having good reputation in the society. Their family is a known big family being big landlords in the village. Defendant Rattan Kaur @ Ratni has been working in their house for the last many years for doing the house-hold/labour work on the fixed amount RSA No.1776 of 2009 (O&M) 2 of Rs.3500/- per year which starts from first Har. She took this amount in advance every year. Defendant No.2 is the son of defendant no.1. On 1.12.2004, defendant No.1 refused to work in the house of the plaintiffs for the reasons best known to her. On asking both the defendants, defendant no.1 stated that she will not resume her duties for the said work in their house. They requested the defendants to return ½ amount of her salary as the contract for which she has been employed will end at the month of Har, 2005 but the defendants refused to make the payment and did not resume the duty. Instead of making the payment, both the defendants hatched a conspiracy against the plaintiffs and lodged a false complaint against them to the local police levelling the allegations that they have uttered derogatory remarks against their caste. Upon the said complaint, Incharge of P.P.Mahaal, called both the plaintiffs to the P.P. by sending police constables. At that time, Master Ravinder Pal Singh also accompanied them. On 20.12.2004, none of the defendants came to the P.P. but the defendants were kept there in the said false complaint, for which, they suffered great physical and mental pains and they were also lowered in the estimation of their friends, relatives and villagers. The Incharge of the PP allowed the plaintiffs to go to their house in the evening and they were asked to reach the PP on 23.12.2004 at 9 AM sharp. On 23.12.2004, both the plaintiffs went to the PP in the company of respectables and requested the Incharge of PP to call the defendants for the truthfulness and till evening, none from the defendants came there and the Incharge asked the RSA No.1776 of 2009 (O&M) 3 plaintiffs to come later on. On the said day, the defendants withdrew their complaint in late night. The plaintiffs have to remain in PP on false allegations of the defendants unnecessary whereby they suffered physical and mental pain. Plaintiff No.1 is aged about 65 years and is a heat patient. On account of the harassment, his heart was even sinked, for which, he has to get treatment from Dr.Ved Gupta. They also suffered special damages at the hands of the defendants. The defendants have been requested to make payment of damages but they refused to make the same. 3. On notice of the suit, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it is admitted that the defendant has been working in the house of the plaintiffs for the last so many years for doing house hold and labour work . She is working at the rate of Rs.6000/- per year. The plaintiffs have not paid the salary of defendant no.1 of the last five years and whenever she demanded the salary, they used to maltreat her and gave abuses in filthy language and forced her to remain on duty in their house. It is admitted that the defendant has refused to work any more in the house of the plaintiffs as they failed to pay the salary for the last 5/6 years. It is also admitted that the defendant no.1 refused to join the duty as the plaintiffs used derogatory remarks against their caste and made threats to RSA No.1776 of 2009 (O&M) 4 the life of the defendants, for which, complaint was lodged with Incharge of P.P.Mahal and in that complaint, the matter was compromised with the intervention of the Sarpanch of the village, . The police did not take any action on the complaint. All other averments were denied. 4. The plaintiffs/appellants have filed the replication to the written statement of the defendants denying the objections and averments raised in the written statement and have reiterated the contents of the plaint to be true and correct. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendants harassed the plaintiffs and caused bodily pain to plaintiffs?OPP 2. Whether defendants have caused loss to the plaintiffs are entitled to special damages, if yes upto what extent?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. Plaintiffs had field a suit for damages against the defendants for causing them mental harassment, bodily pain, loss of business and reputation. However, plaintiffs failed to prove on record the complaint filed RSA No.1776 of 2009 (O&M) 5 by the defendants against them. The case of the defendants is that the matter regarding the complaint was got compromised as the plaintiffs had felt sorry about the incident and the complaint was withdrawn. Learned trial Court in its judgment has observed that the plaintiff No.2, in his cross-examination, has stated that the compromise was voluntarily effected between the parties. However the said compromise had not been placed on record. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and has to plead and prove its case by leading cogent and clinching evidence. Plaintiff cannot draw any benefit from the weakness in evidence led by the defendants. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. The material evidence necessary to prove the case of the plaintiffs had not,however, proved on record. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge September 07, 2009 arya