R.S.A. No.506 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.506 of 2007 Date of Decision : 6.3.2009 S.Swaran Singh ....Appellant Versus National Insurance Company Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a regular second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 17.1.2006 and the first Appellate Court dated 25.9.2006. The appellant had filed a suit for damages against the respondent Insurance Company pleading that his buffaloes, who were insured, had died and the respondents were bound to pay the compensation for the reason that the livestock was insured with the respondents and that there was a valid existing policy. Prior thereto the plaintiff had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, in which a compromise was arrived at on 4.10.2001 inter se between the parties. In the suit it was R.S.A. No.506 of 2007 -2- pleaded that it was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. A prayer for mandatory injunction was made directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 16/23.9.2000. The respondents disputed the pleadings raised by the appellant and stated that the compromise had been arrived at between the parties before the Forum and in support of the compromise independent statement was also recorded which was signed by the plaintiff and his son, who admitted the same to be correct. They had also surrendered the original cover notes and the same stood cancelled. It was further pleaded that the Forum had already adjudicated upon the matter though it was on the basis of compromise and the statement made on oath and that the present suit was not maintainable. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether suit is time barred?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD R.S.A. No.506 of 2007 -3- 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 8. Relief. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit while resorting to the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 C.P.C. as the appellant had failed to adduce any evidence despite several opportunities granted to him. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid findings to contend that the appellant is a poor illiterate person who could not contest his case effectively and therefore one effective opportunity be granted to him to adduce his evidence and the matter be remanded back for retrial. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It has been noticed in the impugned orders that the issues in the instant case were framed on 20.1.2005 and thereafter several opportunities were granted to the appellant to adduce his evidence and ultimately on 17.1.2006 the evidence of the appellant was closed by a judicial order. Having regard to the fact that number of opportunities were given to the appellant to adduce his evidence, the trial Court was left with not other option but to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. In any eventuality, there is sufficient material on record to show that the appellant had R.S.A. No.506 of 2007 -4- earlier resorted to the proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. He had assailed the compromise which was entered into between the parties, but no such evidence is there to suggest that either the compromise was a result of fraud or any coercion etc. In this view of the matter, the trial Court was left with no other option but to proceed under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any legal infirmity in the impugned orders. Merely because a plea has been raised that a person is old and illiterate, it cannot be a reason to offset a legally sustainable order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 6.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss