RSA No. 664 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 1858-C of 2010 and RSA No. 664 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 07 , 2010 Sanjay Dua ...... Appellant Versus Raman Bagga and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Siddharth Batra, Advocate for the appellant. **** 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. CM No. 1858-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 46days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 664 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to return some blank cheques on account of the partnership firm having been dissolved. Both the Courts after seeing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant had not been able to prove the alleged dissolution of the firm on 30.11.1999. RSA No. 664 of 2010(O&M) 2 The Courts below took into consideration, apart from the above, two salient factors, one was that it was a partnership firm and it was the appellant- plaintiff who was a working partner and it is quite possible that the blank signed cheques would be in his custody. The second fact which has been noted by the Courts below is that for a period of almost 1 ½ years the appellant made no efforts to either act on the alleged dissolution deed or took any steps to retrieve the alleged blank signed cheques. The third fact noticed by the Courts below is that the factum of dissolution of partnership deed had been mentioned only after the cheques issued by the appellant had bounced and a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been issued. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was also moved by the appellant for summoning the file of the criminal complaint containing the original dissolution deed and for examining the attesting witness Naresh Bhatia which was dismissed by the learned Lower Appellate court. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the application for additional evidence under Order 41 rule 27 CPC can be dismissed when the evidence to be produced was essential for deciding the main dispute? ii)Whether the proof given by the handwriting expert was not sufficient to prove the dissolution deed entered upon by the parties? iii)Whether courts below have gone totally against the law and record of the present case? iv)Whether the courts below have failed to exercise its power under section 73 of the Evidence Act for the just decision of the instant case? RSA No. 664 of 2010(O&M) 3 It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of both the courts below but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, 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 April 07 , 2010 sunita