RSA No. 2878 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2878 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16 , 2009 Kulbhushan Kumar Manchanda ...... Appellant Versus Sushil Kumar Bedi ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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 learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of borrowed amount by sale of mortgaged property. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court suffers from perversity being contrary to evidence on record and settled principle of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained? ii)Whether findings recorded by the first Appellate Court regarding due execution of the mortgage deed suffers from RSA No. 2878 of 2007 (O&M) 2 perversity being based on assumption and presumption without either referring to the reasons given by the trial court or the evidence on record or the statutory provision applicable and referred by the trial court? Both the questions are pure questions of fact. There are two most noteworthy facts. First is that the appellant has accepted his signatures and thumb impression on the mortgage deed but has not raised any plea as to why they appeared on the said document in case no such transaction had taken place. The second noteworthy fact is that the original title deed of the property was in possession of the respondent. It cannot be held that the findings of the learned lower Appellate Court are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of the evidence so as to be liable under Section 100 CPC. Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 16 , 2009 sunita