RSA No.126 of 2008(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.126 of 2008(O & M) Date of Decision:06.03.2009 Balwant Singh ....appellant Versus Baljinder Kaur & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Onkar Singh,Advocate for the appellant Mr.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the respondents **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court whereby his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2006 passed by Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.)Phillaur,was decreed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance and future maintenance and for creating charge on the property fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendants/appellant raising various preliminary objections. On merits, relationship of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 was admitted. It was also admitted that plaintiff No.2 was residing with plaintiff No.1. However, she had withdrawn from the society of defendant No.1 without any reasonable cause and was residing separately and as such she was not entitled to any maintenance. RSA No.126 of 2008(O & M) 2 Both the parties led evidence and the trial Court after evaluating the evidence, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff- respondents and decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, defendant -appellant filed an appeal in the Lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed by the it observing that no arguments were raised by the appellant against the findings given by the trial Court and, therefore, no interference was called for in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the present appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside on the short ground that no reasons have been given while passing the judgment. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Smt.Swaran Lata Ghosh versus Harendra Kumar Banerjee and another AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1167. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata Ghosh's case(Supra). However, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. It has been specifically stated in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court that no argument was raised before the Court to challenge the findings given by the trial Court. Even no such question has been raised by the appellant in his grounds of appeal taken before this Court. It is also relevant to mention at this stage that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bachhaj Nahar versus Nillima Mandal and anr. JT 2008(13)SC 255 has RSA No.126 of 2008(O & M) 3 laid down as under: “ A case not specifically pleaded can be considered by the court only where the pleadings in substance, though not in specific terms, contains the necessary averments to make out a particular case and the issues framed also generally cover the question involved and the parties proceed on the basis that such case was at issue and had led evidence thereon. Without pleadings and issues, evidence cannot be considered to make out a new case which is not pleaded. Another aspect to be noticed, is that the court can consider such a case not specifically pleaded, only when one of the parties raises the same at the stage of arguments by contending that the pleadings and issues are sufficient to make out a particular case and that the parties proceeded on that basis and had led evidence on that case. Where neither party puts forth such a contention, the court cannot obviously make out such a case not pleaded, suo motu.” Since no argument was raised by the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court, therefore it was not expected to give reasons. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 06.03.2009 neenu