IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 136 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.10.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Thakur Dass Sood. .....Petitioner. Versus Mahesh Kumar. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. H.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Heard. 2. In a suit for recovery of ` 85,600/- (eighty five thousand six hundred) filed by the respondent (plaintiff) against the appellant (defendant) on account of hiring charges of road-roller belonging to the plaintiff, which was taken on hire by the defendant, the defendant has suffered concurrent findings of fact. 3. The appeal is sought to be admitted on the following questions, which, according to the appellant/defendant, are substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the findings recorded by the Ld. Courts below are vitiated for failure to consider and appreciate the pleadings and evidences of the parties both oral as well as documentary. 2. Whether the Ld. courts below have wrongly relied upon the oral testimony of the plaintiff and given credence to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... the testimony of hearsay evidence ignoring the direct evidence regarding the making of the payment by the defendant. 3. Whether the suit for recovery was maintainable in absence of any evidence without leading cogent and reliable evidence and the plaintiff was estopped to file the suit by his own acts, deeds, commission and latches and false and frivolous allegation have been leveled despite making payment.” 4. A bare perusal of the above questions would go to show that in essence these are based on questions of fact and not law, much less a substantial question of law. Even question No. 3, which relates to estoppel, though can be said to be question of law, yet is essentially liable to be established on facts. 5. In view of the above, the appeal, which does not raise any substantial question of law, is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of disposal of the main appeal, CMPs No. 261 and 622 of 2011 shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 19th October, 2011 (virender)