IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1682 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.1.2010 Jarnail Singh and another ......Appellant(s) Versus Sukhdev Singh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.798-C of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellants, the application is allowed. Order dated 19.1.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.1682 of 2004 Learned counsel for the appellants at the outset states that he is not pressing this appeal against Sukhdev Singh-respondent and the same be dismissed and his grievance is only with regard to inadequacy of the compensation granted to the appellants. Ordered accordingly. From the perusal of the record of this appeal, I find that against the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the appellants were granted a compensation of Rs.48,000/- against Sukhdev Singh and Manjit Singh-defendants, two appeals were filed before the Lower Appellate Court i.e. Civil Appeal No.RBT184 of 22.9.2000 (preferred by defendant-Sukhdev Singh challenging the awarding of compensation against him) and Civil Appeal No.146 of 26.9.2000 (preferred by the present appellants challenging the inadequacy of compensation granted to them). The Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated RSA No.1682 of 2004 (O&M) -2- 17.3.2003 decided both the appeals and in the process, Civil Appeal No.RBT184 of 22.9.2000 was accepted and it was held that Sukhdev Singh-defendant is not liable to pay any compensation. However, it is a matter of record that the other Civil Appeal No.146 of 26.9.2000 was allowed to the extent of enhancing the compensation from Rs.48,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- recoverable from Manjit Singh. I find that in the present appeal, though the appellants have raised grievance with regard to inadequacy of the compensation only and have claimed that they are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- yet I find that challenge has been made only to the decree drawn in Civil Appeal No.RBT184 of 22.9.2000 i.e. in the case of Sukhdev Singh against whom the appellants as noticed above have not pressed their claim and no appeal has been filed challenging the decree passed in CA No.146 of 26.9.2000. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is without any merit . No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 29, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE