RSA No. 4223 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 12789-C of 2009 and RSA No. 4223 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 25 , 2009 Kuljit Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus Balwlinder Kaur and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Vikram K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 12789-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 222 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 4223 of 2009(O&M) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondents for compensation against the appellants for having caused the death of Davinder Singh. Learned Lower Appellate Court on an appreciation of the entire evidence held that the respondents had been able to bring home their plea that the appellants were RSA No. 4223 of 2009 (O&M) 2 responsible for the death of Davinder Singh and consequently awarded the compensation. The following questions have been proposed:- A. Whether the non framing of the important issue regarding the murder of the deceased renders the entire suit proceedings to be vitiated? B. Whether in view of the facts on record, any compensation could be awarded to the respondents? C. Whether the Appellate Court has erred in not looking into the well reasoned findings recorded by the Trial Court? D. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has ignored ample evidence and material on record to show that the respondents did not deserve any compensation? Questions No. B, C and D are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. With regard to question No. A, in my opinion issue No., which is to the effect- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount? would cover this aspect of the matter. Consequently holding all the questions against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 25, 2009 sunita