RSA No.164 of 2010 (O&M).doc - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.164 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 05.02.2010 **** Ram Kishan . . . . Appellant VS. Om Parkash and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Ms.Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for Mr.P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. Defendant is in second appeal against the decree for recovery of Rs.35,700/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the decretal amount after having unsuccessfully denied execution of pronote and receipt dated 31.5.1999. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per Section 2 (hhh) of the Haryana Relief of Agriculture Indebtedness Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), the appellant is not liable to pay an amount double than the principle. It is submitted that the rate of interest is on the higher side, which is required to be intervened by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant but I do not subscribe to the arguments raised by him because the provisions of the Act are not applicable as they pertains to agricultural labourer RSA No.164 of 2010 (O&M).doc - 2 – defined under Section 2(a) of the Act and there is a complete mechanism in the Act for the purpose of settlement of debt barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court completely. Moreover, argument raised before this Court is not the part of pleadings nor raised before the Courts below and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Bachhaj Nahar Verus Nilima Mandal and another” JT 2008(13) Supreme Court 255, the said argument cannot be taken at this stage as it has been held by the Supreme Court that : - “ (i) No amount of evidence can be looked into, upon a plea which was never put forward in the pleadings. A question which did arise from the pleadings and which was not the subject matter of an issue, cannot be decided by the Court. (ii) A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The Court should confine its decision to the question raised in pleadings. Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed and which does not flow from the facts and the cause of action alleged in the plaint. (iii) A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for the first time in a second appeal.“ In view of the above legal position, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no question of law much less substantial is involved. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 05, 2009 JUDGE vivek