R. S. A. No. 3906 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3906 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 21, 2010 Ujala .... Appellant Vs. Dhanpati and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. D. S. Bali, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Mann, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by defendant Ujala, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. Suit was filed by Juglal (since deceased and represented by respondents herein as his legal representatives) alleging that the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to purchase a maruti car by taking loan from bank against plaintiff's fixed deposit as it would help the plaintiff in his business. Accordingly, the plaintiff got prepared demand draft of Rs.1,97,393.74 paise in favour of Maruti Udyog Limited. Defendant and his friend Hukam Chand accompanied the plaintiff to the showroom and made the plaintiff to stand outside the showroom. They went inside for purchasing the car of the plaintiff. They also took Rs.3,000/-and Rs.1,600/- from the plaintiff for ancillary purpose. The car was purchased and was left at the house of the R. S. A. No. 3906 of 2009 2 plaintiff by Joginder Singh – driver of the agency. However, on 07.08.2000, some person came to the plaintiff's house and he wanted to see the car stating that the defendant wanted to sell the car to that person. The plaintiff went to defendant, who threatened the plaintiff. The plaintiff then learnt that the defendant had obtained documents of the car in his own name. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the maruti car in question and the defendant, by playing fraud, got his own name entered on the sale papers of the car. The plaintiff also sought declaration that he is entitled to get the sale papers corrected in his own name and to get the car registered in his own name. Permanent injunction was also claimed. The defendant inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff had borrowed Rs.1,90,000/- from the defendant. When the defendant demanded the said amount from the plaintiff for purchase of car, the plaintiff obtained demand draft of Rs.1,97,393.74 paise favouring Maruti Udyog Limited for purchase of car by the defendant. The excess amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. One Wazir Singh drove the car from the showroom to the village. Defendant and Hukam Chand were there in the car. However, the plaintiff along with others stopped the car in front of his house and snatched it from the defendant. The defendant, therefore, claimed that he is entitled to get custody of the car. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. I have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Both the courts below, on appreciation of evidence, have arrived at concurrent finding against the defendant-appellant and the said R. S. A. No. 3906 of 2009 3 finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that no issue regarding alleged fraud was framed and therefore, the defendant got no opportunity to rebut the plaintiff's case. The contention cannot be accepted. Issue no.1 as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for, is wide enough to cover the plea of the plaintiff regarding fraud. The defendant was well aware of the pleadings and accordingly, the defendant has led evidence, whatever he wanted, to rebut the plaintiff's case. In view thereof, the aforesaid contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 21, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE