CWP No. 1012 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 1012 of 1988 Date of Decision: 14.08.2008 Darya Singh ...... Petitioner Versus The Collector and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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? Present: None for the petitioner. Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.10.1987 passed by the Collector, Bhiwani allowing the appeal of respondent No.3 against the order allowing the application of the petitioner under section 8 of the Haryana Agricultural Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1976 ( for short 'the Act') for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1400/- and interest thereon. According to the petitioner the appeal of respondent No.3 was allowed on the ground that according to Rule 3 of the Haryana Agricultural Relief of Indebtedness Rules, the application should have been signed and verified by the applicant in the same manner as a plaint in a civil suit and thus was not competent without the same. In my opinion, lack of verification cannot be a fatal omission. In response to this, Mr.Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has urged that this view may have been justified where a clear and CWP No. 1012 of 1988 2 cogent finding of fact had been recorded about the existence of the liability. However, in the present case the trial Court viz. the Debt Settlement Officer, Charkhi Dadri, has not at all considered whether in fact, the petitioner had advanced any loan to the respondent No.3 but has just assumed the existence of the debt. I find weight in this argument. There is no finding in the order of Debt Settlement Officer that the petitioner had advanced a loan to the private respondent. He adds that even assuming that some money may have been due to the petitioner from his client yet it was the case of his client that actually he had purchased a buffalo worth Rs.550/-from the petitioner and paid for it by way of Rs. 400/- cash and Ghee and no evidence was discussed by the Debt Settlement Officer to even return a finding that the respondent No.3 had failed to pay the alleged debt. This is a classic case of litigative cussedness. The dispute started 32 years ago and had initially come to this Court by way of CWP No. 4205 of 1978. The parties are before this Court again after a lapse of 30 years. Even if the petitioner's case is accepted, the total amount amount due today at the awarded rate of interest would not exceed Rs. 4000-5000/-. Without going into the averments regarding factual and legal mistakes levelled against the respondents No. 1 and 2 by the petitioner and respondent No.3, I deem it appropriate to dismiss this writ petition on the ground that the matter is too trivial to be allowed to linger on further. Dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE August 14, 2008 sunita