RSA No. 2149 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2149 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Narender son of Sh. Sube Singh, r/o village Pugthala, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. ... Appellant Versus Bijender son of Sh. Hari Singh, r/o village Pugthala, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed, against the judgement and decree dated 22.10.08, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and the judgement and decree, dated 04.03.09, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Sonepat, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. Bijender Singh, plaintiff/respondent, had sown wheat crop, in his land, as fully detailed, in the plaint. The defendant/appellant, had also sown wheat crop, in his own fields, which he had harvested with the help of combine harvester, on the afternoon of 13.04.06. After collecting the wheat, in a canter, the defendant/appellant, put the dry stalks of grain, lying in the field, on fire, without caring for the crops, standing in the nearby fields. He RSA No. 2149 of 2009 2 left his field with the canter laden with wheat grain. The fire spread, in the nearby fields, within minutes, and burnt to ashes the crop, sown by Bijender Singh, plaintiff/respondent, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 76,000/-, to him. It was stated that the incident, was the direct result of grave negligence and carelessness, on the part of the defendant/appellant. Accordingly,a suit for recovery with interest, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff, had no locus-standi, to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit, was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, had no cause of action, to file the suit. It was admitted that the defendant, had harvested the wheat crop with the help of a combine harvester on 13.04.06. It was stated that his (defendant's) own crop, was destroyed, in the fire, which had broken out, on that fateful afternoon. It was admitted by the defendant, that the wheat crop of the adjacent fields, was also destroyed. It was further stated that the defendant, had put the wheat grain, in a four-wheeler, but it seemed that the silencer thereof, caused a spark to fall into the fields, which resulted into a wild fire within minutes. It was further stated that the defendant, was neither careless, nor negligent, but the fire, was the result of accident. It was further stated that the defendant, himself suffered loss, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-, on account of the reason, that his own wheat crop stood burnt. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 76,000/- as damages from the defendant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. RSA No. 2149 of 2009 3 13.04.06 till its realization, as prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (iii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (iv) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Sonepat, vide judgement and decree dated 04.03.2009. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that the Courts below, mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence, resulting into recording of perverse findings. He further submitted that loss, was caused, to the crop of the plaintiff/respondent, not on account of the carelessness and negligence of the appellant. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of RSA No. 2149 of 2009 4 the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Undisputedly, the fields of the plaintiff/respondent, and the defendant/appellant, are nearby each other. Both of them,had sown the wheat crop, in their fields. The defendant/appellant, had harvested the wheat crop. The Courts below, were right, in coming to the conclusion, on the basis of evidence, on record, that stubble, in his field, was put on fire, by the defendant/appellant, with an intent, to destroy it, as a result whereof, the fire spread, and caused damage to the wheat crop, in the fields of the plaintiff/respondent. The Courts below, were also right, in coming to the conclusion, that had due care been taken by the defendant/appellant, before setting on fire the stubble, in his fields, the fire would not have spread, and destroyed the wheat crop of the plaintiff/respondent. Subhash Chander, Kanungo, PW2, assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs. 25,923/-, which was caused to the crop of the plaintiff/respondent, and submitted his report P7. The concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and, as such, warrant no interference. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, being without merit,must fail, and the same stands rejected. RSA No. 2149 of 2009 5 11. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 11.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE