R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : July 07, 2009 Mehal Singh and others, ...... Appellant (s) v. Hardeep Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Charan Jit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. *** 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) C.M No.9512-C of 2006 No reply has been filed to this application. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.3747 of 2006 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below. The dispute centers around the issue whether respondents No.3 and 4 are sons of Veero. This is essentially a question of fact. R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: Counsel for the appellants has proposed the following substantial questions of law :- “ a) Whether there is complete misreading and non reading of evidence on record and also of the pleadings of the parties ? b) Whether the suit was bad for non impleading Smt. Tej Kaur widow of Karam Singh who was alive at the time of filing the suit ? c) Whether declaration and injunction prayed can be granted without recording categorical finding reading the fact that plaintiff no.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased Veero specifically when it admitted by Mohinder Singh remarried after the death of Veero ?” Questions No.(a) and (c) are pure questions of fact. I have not been persuaded to hold that the finding thereon is either based on no evidence or based on such a misreading of the evidence as to render the same completely perverted. As regards question No.(b), counsel for the appellants is not in a position to deny that this issue was never raked up by the appellants in their written statement and that this question of law and fact, thus, cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 07, 2009. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 3747 of 2006 (O&M) ::3::