R.S.A No. 3649 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3649 of 2008 Date of decision : July 21, 2009 Hans Raj, ...... Appellant (s) v. Narain Dass, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Yashwinder Paul Singh, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court allowing the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent and, thus, decreeing his suit for recovery of Rs.48,000/-. The plea taken by the respondent in the civil suit was that he and the appellant were partners and that after the partnership deed came to an end, some money was due to him from the appellant, in respect of which he filed the instant suit. Counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions:- “ i) Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court could R.S.A No. 3649 of 2008 ::2:: have set aside the well reasoned finding of the trial Court without giving dissenting findings ? ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable on the unregistered partnership deed and without dissolution of firm ? iii) Whether the Ex.P3 dated 18.12.2001 and Ex.P-1 is a forged document, and Ex.P-3 which bears no detail of for what purpose the amount has been taken is a valid document ? iv) Whether Ex.P-3 is admissible in evidence when the same does not bear the appropriate revenue stamp ? v) Whether the suit filed by the respondent is maintainable in the present form ? vi) Whether the suit filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed ?” It would be seen that the main question to be adjudicated on merit is question No. (iii). However, in respect of this question, the learned lower appellate Court has found that the signatures not being disputed the version of the appellant (who had otherwise denied any relationship with the respondent) that his signatures had been obtained on a blank paper was not at all credible. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or that they are based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. Questions No. (i), (v) and (vi) are general questions about which no arguments have been raised. With regard to question No. (ii), the learned lower appellate Court has rightly found that the suit is not based on R.S.A No. 3649 of 2008 ::3:: partnership deed but is based on the acknowledgment of payment Ex.P3 and that is why a suit for recovery was filed. With regard to question No. (iv), in my opinion the acknowledgment of payment not being a receipt does not require a revenue stamp. In the circumstances, I hold the questions proposed against the appellant and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 21, 2009. JUDGE `kk'