RSA No. 372 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 930-C of 2009 and CM No. 933-C of 2009 in RSA No. 372 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 07, 2009 Smt. Nasib Kaur ...... Appellant Versus Karnail Singh & others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 930-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 71 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No. 933-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, the applicant- appellant is permitted to file the present appeal as a forma pauperis. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.372 of 2009 This is an appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for damages against the RSA No. 372 of 2009 2 respondents for having caused the death of her son. It is noteworthy that the said respondents had been acquitted of the murder charge by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambala. Both the Courts have found as a fact that the appellant has not been able to connect the respondents with the death of her son. Learned counsel has proposed the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether both the Courts below have returned the findings contrary to the evidence on record? ii)Whether both the courts below have misread the evidence and failed to apply its judicious mind to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record? iii)Whether the standard of proof in a criminal case is different than the one the damages are to be awarded to the victim in a civil suit? In fact all the three questions are pure questions of facts. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or based on such a misreading of the evidence that the judgment can be termed as perverse and thus liable for interference in exercise of powers under section 100 of the C.P.C. In this view of the matter this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 07, 2009 sunita