R.S.A No. 450 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.1385-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 450 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : September 03, 2009 Achhar Singh and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Surjit Singh and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the recovery suit filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed a suit claiming payment for goods supplied to the appellants (defendants No.1 and 2). It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that the appellants had purchased bricks from him but they made the payment of Rs.84,000/- to him by way of a self cheque dated 6.2.1995 from the account of defendant No.3 (respondent No.2). When the plaintiff presented the said cheque, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, the appellants made some payment and for the remaining gave the plaintiff another cheque. It is noteworthy that both these R.S.A No. 450 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: cheques were signed by the appellants. It was in view of this that the Courts below decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether the suit is maintainable against the society without service of notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ? b) Whether there can be any presumption of any liability against defendants/appellants on the basis of self cheque ? c) Whether the civil suit against the Cooperative Society is maintainable as per section 82 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 ? d) Whether the statement of Sh. Balbir Singh Ex. Sarpanch PW-4 against the answering defendant can be relied upon which are in contradiction to his own writing Ex.P-20 and Ex.D-6 ? e) Whether the findings of the Courts below are against the evidence and hence perverse and therefore liable to be set aside ?” It would be seen that questions No.(a) and (c) are related with one another. Both the Courts below have held that in any case the suit as regards the appellants was maintainable. It would be noticed that the Cooperative Society is not in appeal and, thus, these two questions do not arise. Questions No.(b), (d) and (e) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of R.S.A No. 450 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: evidence as would render the same perverse. Consequently, this appeal, as also the application for stay are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 03, 2009. JUDGE `kk'