RSA No. 801 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 2240-2241-C of 2010 and RSA No. 801 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 24 , 2010 Ranjit Singh ...... Appellant Versus Gurmit Saini ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. **** 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. 2240-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 605 days in f refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No. 2241-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 801 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below partly decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- on account of goods(Satellite T.V./Dish antenna and cables etc.) RSA No. 801 of 2010(O&M) 2 purchased by the appellant from the respondent. Apart from producing the pronote and receipt executed by the appellant, the respondent also placed on record copies of plaint and statement of the appellant in an earlier suit wherein as plaintiff the appellant had admitted the execution of the pronote. The following questions have been proposed:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are based on misreading and mis- appreciation of the evidence on record by the courts below, and f so, whether the same can be set aside by this Hon'ble Court under section100 of Civil Procedure Code? 2. Whether the pronote and receipt Ex.P-2 and ex.P-3 have been executed in violation of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments act? 3. Whether the Courts below have committed a legal error by relying upon the documents Ex.P-2 and P-3? The main question which has been argued is question No.1. It is a pure question of fact. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. Learned counsel has taken me through those findings but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings 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. No arguments have been addressed on questions No. 2 and 3. Learned counsel has also argued that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum(simple) is excessive. In my opinion it cannot be held to be excessive as the appellant had purchased goods on credit and thus suit is for recovery of that price. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. RSA No. 801 of 2010(O&M) 3 Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 24 , 2010 sunita