High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Bheem Sain v. Gurditt Singh - RSA-1224-2006  RD-P&H 12844 (19 December 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2006
Date of Decision Jan. 09 , 2007
Present : Shri Kranti Dhir, Advocate,
for the appellant.
PRITAM PAL, J.
This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2004, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Faridkot.
Without going into the details, suffice it to say that respondent- plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,60,896.79 ps. for causing damage to his land measuring 40 Kanals, which was given to the appellant- defendant for setting-up a brick-kiln. The learned trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant had acted against the terms and conditions of the agreement while digging-out the land of the respondent- plaintiff and the possession was also not delivered back, as per the condition laid down in the agreement, which was entered into between the R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2006 2
parties and so on account of the loss caused to the respondent-plaintiff, the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.3,10,896/-. However, in appeal filed by the appellant-defendant, the loss assessed by the learned trial Court was reduced from Rs. 3,10,896/- to Rs. 2,10,000/-.
This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellant has now again come up in appeal, before this Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the pleadings and evidence of the parties, I find that there are concurrent findings of fact so far as loss caused to the value of land, expenses incurred for levelling the same and also loss caused due to depriving the respondent-plaintiff from production of two crops, are concerned. A close scrutiny of the evidence adduced before the trial court, further goes to show that there is no perversity or illegality in the findings of fact, returned by the courts below. Apart from that, no substantial question of law could be made out warranting interference in the impugned judgment and decrees.
Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.
[ PRITAM PAL ]
January 09,2007 JUDGE
R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2006 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.