RSA No. 3427 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3427 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 05, 2009 Sardool Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.A.K.Kakkar, Advocate for Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B. S. Taunque, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. **** 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. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the leaned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court allowing the appeal of the respondents and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellants for damages alleged to have been caused to them when, during a storm, electric wires fell on the crop and the allegation was that the said wires were loose, and that is why the loss had been caused to the appellants. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the appellant/plaintiff was able to prove that fire took place due to sparking of loose electric wires which was RSA No. 3427 of 2006(O&M) 2 crossing the fields of the appellant/plaintiff? ii)Whether the respondent-department has lawfully proved that no fire took place? iii)Whether the police investigation report can be ignored only on the ground that Electricity Department was not got joined the investigation? iv)Whether the claim of the appellant/plaintiff can be denied on the ground that police has not joined the Punjab State Electricity Board Department in the investigation? The main question is question No.(i) which is a disputed question of fact. Learned Lower Appellate Court has held that in their affidavits the appellants had stated that they had made various complaints to the respondent for ensuring that the wires were properly fixed but no such complaint was produced. Consequently the learned Lower Appellate Court on facts held that it could not be proved by the appellants that the wires were loose. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the said finding is either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. No other argument has been raised. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 05, 2009 sunita