CM No.3533-34-C of 2008 & RSA NO.1195 OF 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3533-34-C of 2008 & RSA NO.1195 OF 2008 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 11.11.2009 Gurjeet Singh ...Appellant versus Tarsem Chand ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.N.singal, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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. (ORAL) CM No.3533-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 75 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA NO.1195 OF 2008 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.7,70,000/- to the extent of Rs.6,35,000/- along with interest @12% from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realization on the principal CM No.3533-34-C of 2008 & RSA NO.1195 OF 2008 (O&M) -2- amount of Rs. 5 lacs. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.7,70,000/- on the basis of alleged pronote and receipt dt. 03.03.2003? ii)Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated without consideration and the same has been wrongly altered in order to extract huge amount from the appellant/defendant? iii)Whether the alleged signatures of the appellant/defendant on alleged pronote and receipt can be proved without finding given by the handwriting expert or without examining the handwriting expert? iv)Whether the findings of the ld. Courts below are based on inadmissible evidence, misreading of evidence and on the basis of perverse findings hence, liable to be set aside while setting aside the impugned judgments? v)Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the ld. Courts below are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court being illegal and arbitrary? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been CM No.3533-34-C of 2008 & RSA NO.1195 OF 2008 (O&M) -3- able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence, which render them so perverse as to justify interference under Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. November 11, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE