R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.2.2009 Harish Gandhi .......... Appellant Versus Mrs. Amarjit Kaur Pasricha ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 1.11.2007 and 8.1.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery stands decreed. The plaintiff brought a suit for recovery on the plea that the defendant was handed over an amount of Rs. 8,11,750/- for construction of the house. However, the defendant appellant failed to construct the house and started raising false demand, though, no money was spent on the construction of the house. The plaintiff-respondent approached the Legal Services Authority, however, as the matter could not be amicably settled R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2008 2 plaintiff respondent was advised to take his remedy in Civil Court in accordance with law. The suit was contested by the defendant / appellant on the plea that the amount received was paid to contractor and supplier and, therefore, he was not liable to pay any amount to the respondent. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on record have recorded a finding that plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount, though the learned trial Court held that plaintiff / respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 6, 74,150/- along with interest @ 6% per annum but in view of the error in calculation the decree was corrected for Rs. 3,65,750/- along with interest @ 6% per annum by the learned lower appellate Court. The other issues framed on the objections raised by the defendant-appellant were decided against appellant being not pressed. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether the suit as framed was not competent for want of privity of contract ? 2. Whether the learned Courts below ignored the admissible evidence produced on record by way of Ex. D-1 showing the settlement of rates between the parties ? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are perverse being outcome of ignoring the material evidence brought on record ? In support of the substantial questions of law the learned senior R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2008 3 counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that in the present case the learned Courts below failed to notice that the plaintiff/ respondent had failed to prove her case as set up in the plaint. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that in the pleadings a specific stand was taken that the bills were forged and did not depict the correct amount however no proof was brought on record to prove the bills by plaintiff/ respondent. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant also is that details of the expenditure incurred was duly exhibited as Ex. D3 & Ex. D-4 on record i.e. the written statement and replication filed by the defendant appellant before the Legal Services Authority, therefore, the material evidence has been ignored and the finding of the learned Courts below are perverse. The learned senior counsel for the appellant further contends that the reading of documents Ex. D-3 and Ex. D-4 shows that some of the payment towards bills claimed by the defendant /appellant were admitted by the plaintiff / respondent, but the learned Courts ignored the material evidence. The learned senior counsel for the appellant also contends that Ex. D-1 was in fact agreement between contractor and the plaintiff / respondent and was witnessed by the defendant / respondent and, therefore, appellant could not be fastened with any liability for want of contract. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. The defendant / appellant had categorically admitted the receipt of money and in absence of R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2008 4 contract between the parties he was bound to account for the amount received. It is admitted case that the pleadings brought on record Ex. D3 and Ex.D-4 was not proved by leading any admissible primary evidence to prove the pleadings. The fact that some of the amounts were admitted is also of no consequence as the Courts below have given benefit of expenditure of Rs. 4,46,000/- out of the amount received by the plaintiff. The finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence. Nor any documentary evidence has been ignored as contended. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Courts below were in error in placing their reliance on valuation report to decree the suit. This plea is also totally misconceived. In civil proceedings the Courts have to act on the appreciation of evidence on record. The report of the valuer was duly proved on record and he was subjected to cross-examination. He submitted second report when certain new evidence was shown by the appellant. The report was duly proved on record. No error can be found with the acceptance of evidence on record. R.S.A. No. 1084 of 2008 5 The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 25.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE