IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.2339-C of 2010 and RSA No.1797 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.02.2010 Dharam Pal ..Appellant Versus Ram Piari and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the respondents . . . AJAY TEWARI. J CM No.2339-C of 2010 This is an application for stay. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the main case is taken up for arguments. RSA No.1797 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgents of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for damages against the appellant for having caused the death of Sahib Ram. Both the Courts below after appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the respondents had been able to prove that the death of Sahib Ram had been caused by the appellants and consequently decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the impugned judgments, which are based on misreading of evidence, are legally sustainable ? (ii) Whether the suit under the provisions of Fatal CM No.2339-C of 2010 -2- RSA No.1797 of 2009 Accident Act, 1855 is maintainable, when the plaintiff even failed to prove the death o the deceased itself ? (iii) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, which is based on an unexhibited document is legally sustainable ? (iv) Whether a claim under the Fatal Accidents Act would be maintainable, when the plaintiff has failed to prove that the death of a person had been caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of the opposite side ? (v) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been caused to the present appellant ? It would be seen that question Nos.1,2 ,3 and 5 were the main questions and these are the only questions which have been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. The said questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has argued that in the absence of the Post-mortem Report having been exhibited even death is not proved. In my opinion, this argument cannot be contenanced. It is not necessary that death be proved only by Post-mortem. The Courts below relied upon the deposition of eye-witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) to come to the conclusion that the appellants had killed Sahib Ram. Moreover, the statement of PW-1 that the appellant had taken the deceased at 9.00 O' Clock at night to settle the accounts has not even been cross-examined. In the circumstances, I have to hold that the learned counsel has not been able to pursuade me that the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below 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 holding all the questions proposed CM No.2339-C of 2010 -3- RSA No.1797 of 2009 against the appellant, this appeal stands dismissed. As the main case has been decided, accordingly, the C.M., if any, stands disposed of. February 23, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE