RSA No. 2662 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 7442-C and 7443-C of 2007 and RSA 2662 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Sukhdev Singh ...... Appellant Versus Pargat Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.N.K.Manchanda, 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. 7443-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. CM No. 7442-C of 2007 Despite service none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Consequently this application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal is allowed. RSA 2662 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovering an amount of Rs. 40,000/- plus interest on the basis of pronote and receipt. RSA No. 2662 of 2007 (O&M) 2 The following questions have been proposed:- 1) Whether there is total misreading of the facts evidence by the learned courts below while ignoring the relevant and material piece of oral as well as documentary evidence on record and which is serious error in law having vitiating effect on the findings? 2) Whether the pronote and receipt dated 15.1.2003 have been proved on the record in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act? 3) Whether the judgments and decrees of both the courts are sustainable in the eyes of law while deciding the issues together and no separate findings have been given on each and every issue? 4) Whether grave and manifest injustice is being done to the appellants? It would be seen that all the questions proposed 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 misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. Consequently the appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 16, 2009 sunita