Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 541 (PNJ)

Udham Kaur v. State of Punjab

2002-05-15

S.S.NIJJAR

body2002
ORDER S.S. Nijjar, J. - I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. 2. According to the learned counsel, both the courts below have misread the documentary evidence which was on the record. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land since 1969, when her husband died. He further submitted that the eviction proceedings against Pritam Singh and Piara Singh cannot affect the right of the appellant as she was not impleaded as party in the aforesaid proceedings. Furthermore, the rapat roznamcha dated 7.3.1980 which has been considered by the trial Court does not mention that the possession was taken from the plaintiff. He further submitted that the entries had in fact been corrected in the year 1988-89. I am of the considered opinion that both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact, after due appreciation of the evidence. Merely because this Court would come to a different conclusion on the same evidence, would not amount to a substantial question of law. This Court would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. This view of mine finds support from the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2920. In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observes as under:- "10. The question of law formulated as substantial question of law in the instant case cannot in any way, be termed to be a question of law much less as substantial question of law. The question formulated in fact is a question of fact. Merely because of appreciation of evidence another view is also possible would not clothe the High Court to assume the jurisdiction by terming the question as substantial question of law. The question formulated in fact is a question of fact. Merely because of appreciation of evidence another view is also possible would not clothe the High Court to assume the jurisdiction by terming the question as substantial question of law. In this case Issue No. 1 as framed by the trial Court, was, admittedly, an issue of fact which was concurrently held in favour of the appellant-plaintiff and did not justify the High Court to disturb the same by substituting its own finding for the findings of the Courts below, arrived at on appreciation of evidence." This view was expressed by the Supreme Court, after taking into consideration earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Paras Nath Thakur v. Smt. Mohani Dasi, AIR 1959 SC 1204 and Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. 3. Now after the order in this case has already been dictated and arguments in some other case are being heard. Mr. Sethi again comes back to the Court Room, and in the midst of the arguments being addressed by the counsel in that case, points out that he had failed to address arguments on the point that an application was also made for amendment of the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 before the lower Appellate Court. According to the learned counsel, the lower Appellate Court has decided the appeal without considering the application for amendment. A perusal of ground No. 11 in the RSA, shows that the application for amendment was made for impleading Pritam Singh and Piara Singh as parties to the suit. The application was filed on 18.2.2002. The appeal was filed in the lower Appellate Court on 8.12.1995. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court was given on 22.3.2002. It was obviously an attempt to delay the proceedings. As noticed earlier, Pritam Singh and Piara Singh had been evicted from the suit land long ago. They had no concern with the present litigation. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the courts below, I find no injustice has been done to the appellant, even if no order has been passed on the application. As noticed earlier, Pritam Singh and Piara Singh had been evicted from the suit land long ago. They had no concern with the present litigation. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the courts below, I find no injustice has been done to the appellant, even if no order has been passed on the application. This lapse on the part of the lower Appellate Court would not amount to a substantial question of Law. Therefore, there is no need to change the orders. Appeal dismissed.