Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.440 of 2001. Date of Decision: May 19, 2011. Ram Lal and others. … Appellants. Versus Chet Ram and others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The appellants felt aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below against them hence directed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the learned courts below have erred in ignoring the documentary and oral evidence produced by the appellants/ plaintiffs regarding the burning of the orchard and damage caused thereto despite reports/ assessment of horticulture experts, on extraneous consideration of enmity between the parties and litigation between the villagers? 2 2. Whether the courts below have misread and misappreciated the both oral and both oral and documentary evidence on record? 2. In short, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The appellants hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs” claim themselves owners in possession of the suit land, which fact is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that the respondents hereinafter referred to be as “the defendants” are from the same family having lands adjoining to the land of plaintiffs, but both the parties are locked into litigation with respect to the another land. They have also a landed dispute with the other villagers. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs had been boycotted by the ‘Biradari’ of the village. Earlier one Amar Chand son of defendant Balak Ram is alleged to have caused injuries to Pattu Devi wife of plaintiff Ram Lal, as such the matter was reported to police as also to the Panchayat concerned, but it ended in compromise. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants nourished ill-will against them and they also threatened to cause damage to their orchard standing on the suit land. 3. It is alleged that on 13th March, 1995, the defendants set ablaze the orchard of the plaintiffs, 3 which caused damage to 140 trees. The loss was got assessed from the Horticulture Inspector, as per his report, it was assessed to the tune of `84,452.50 paise. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the act of the defendants was intentional and deliberate, actuated with malafide, as such, filed a suit for the recovery of aforesaid amount. 4. Defendants resisted and contested the suit and denied having caused any damage by fire to the orchard of the plaintiffs. They also alleged that this suit was filed against them on account of the various disputes, which were inter-se them on incorrect facts. They pleaded that the plaintiffs and other villagers boycotted the defendants and they were not in visiting terms in the houses of each other. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs had been filing the false cases against them and even causing harassment. They have been also threatening them with dire consequences and caused damage to their orchard and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. In replication, the allegations made by the defendants were denied and even paras of the plaint were reaffirmed. 4 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the leaned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendants have caused damage to the orchard of the plaintiffs? If so, to what extent and at what rate of interest? 2. Whether plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? 4. Relief. 7. After complete trial, the learned trial Court answered all the issues against the plaintiffs, consequently suit was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court plaintiffs filed the appeal before the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge examined following three circumstances:- (i) “strained relations or enmity between the parties on various counts; (ii) due to such enmity setting orchard on fire in presence of PW-4 Tule Ram; and (iii) admission of defendants causing loss by fire to the orchard of the plaintiffs in presence of PW-2 Beli Ram and PW-3 Ram Chand.” 9. On re-examining the evidence and keeping in view the contradictory statements of the witnesses of the plaintiffs and the fact of previous litigation pending between them, causing bad-blood between both the 5 parties, the learned District Judge did not rule out the possibility that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs was a managed show, thus upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, which resulted into the present Regular Second Appeal. 10. Shri Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has vehemently argued that the Courts below ignored the cogent and reliable evidence produced by the plaintiffs and the suit was wrongly dismissed by the Courts misreading and mis-appreciating evidence on record. 11. Contra, Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel for the defendants supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. 12. As a matter of fact, both the parties are inimically disposed of against each other. They are locked into litigation for the last so many years. It is a fact that the orchard of the plaintiffs gutted into fire and it is alleged that it was a mischief committed by the defendants in the presence of PW4 Tule Ram, who was engaged in pruning the trees in his field at the relevant time at a distance of 200 feet from the place 6 of alleged incident in the month of March, 1995. It is pertinent to note that with respect to the alleged incident, he did not make any complaint to anyone on that day. He admitted that he has a telephone at his residence, but even then no intimation was given either to the plaintiffs or to the police. He also admitted that he was one of the defendants in another case filed by the defendants in civil suit filed by the defendants. 13. Plaintiff Ram Lal examined himself as PW1 and gave different numbers of trees at different occasion which gutted into fire and ultimately assessment was made with respect to 140 trees by the horticulture Inspector. He was not an eye witness to the said incident, but he was stated to have been informed by PW-4 Tule Ram an interested witness. He admitted that the pruning of the apple trees is generally done in the month of December in that area. He stated that PW-4 Tule Ram met him during the day time. He admitted that when he moved an application, he did not know how many trees were got charred, though he had visited the orchard twice prior to the moving of the application. Further this was also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had admitted to pay 7 compensation to the tune of `500/- in the presence of Revat Ram, but said Revat Ram has not been examined, thus averment remained unsubstantiated. 14. On the reappraisal and scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that PW4-Tule Ram who is also inimically disposed of against the defendants as a witness supported the case of the plaintiffs, who is also locked into litigation against the defendants, but his conduct is doubtful and his statement regarding the complicity of the defendants to set the orchard of plaintiffs on fire is quite unnatural. On the other hand, defendant Balak Ram examined himself as DW-1 and denied the allegations made in the plaint and also as stated during the trial by plaintiff Ram Lal in his statement. DW-2 Rulda Ram has also supported his version. He further testified that the defendants have been boycotted by the plaintiffs and the villagers of other four villages and the defendants have also boycotted PW2 Beli Ram, PW3 Ram Chand and PW4 Tule Ram. In view of the above facts, the testimony of PW-4 Tule Ram was rightly rejected by the Courts below. 8 15. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find from the record that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence of the plaintiffs in the right perspective or in any way it was mis-appreciated or misread. Since the plaintiffs failed to prove that the trial Court had ignored any important document or oral evidence, the concurrent findings of facts by this Court cannot be interfered with in this regular second appeal, as no questions of law much less the substantial questions of law has arisen. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. May 19, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.