Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHEEM SAIN versus GURDITT SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bheem Sain v. Gurditt Singh - RSA-1224-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12844 (19 December 2006)

R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2006 1

..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2006

Date of Decision Jan. 09 , 2007

Bheem Sain

.. Appellant

v.

Gurditt Singh

.. Respondent

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

som

R.S.A. No. 1224 of 2006 3

..


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.