Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs Ram Nath And Anr on 13 December, 2022
Regular Second Appeal No.4881 of 2010 (O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.4881 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 13, 2022
Sat Pal
...Appellant.
Versus
Ram Nath (since deceased) through his L.Rs and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Mr.Ashok Khubber, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Appellant (Defendant No.1) has preferred this regular second
appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in Civil Appeal No.19 of 2010,
whereby it has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2009 passed
by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra in Civil Suit
No.503 of 2005, partly decreeing plaintiffs' suit qua defendant No.1 for
recovery of `20,000/-.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the plaint are that
plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- as damages against the
defendants, inter-alia, on the grounds that the defendants are real brothers
and are inimical towards the plaintiffs for no fault on their part at all. Rather
they have been assisting and helping both the defendants as and when
required. The defendants planned to fetch money from the plaintiffs by way
1 of 3
Regular Second Appeal No.4881 of 2010 (O&M) {2}
of filing a false claim petition under Section 163-A Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 before Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra on 15.09.2003 on the
basis of false and concocted story. On receipt of the notice of the said claim
petition, plaintiffs requested defendants as to why they have filed the false
claim petition, but they did not pay any heed. Even defendant No.2 joined
hands with defendant No.1 in order to teach a lesson to the plaintiffs. The
said claim petition was dismissed on 10.11.2004 and the award has become
final.
The claim of the plaintiffs was contested by defendants by way
of filling a written statement by raising preliminary objections that plaintiffs
have not come to the court with clean hands, they have suppressed the
material facts from the court and that they have no locus-standi and cause of
action to file the present suit etc. On merits, they have submitted that the
claim petition was filed legally on the basis of DDR which was lodged as
plaintiff No.1 caused the accident with the motor cycle and himself got
admitted defendant No.1 in the hospital and also informed the police.
Defendant No.2 has no concern whatsoever with the matter involved in the
suit.
After completion of pleadings of the parties, the civil Court
framed in all nine issues, and thereafter, the parties adduced their respective
evidence and considering the same, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.2009
proceeded to partly decree the suit.
Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated
20.12.2016, the defendants preferred appeal before the Additional District
Judge, Kurukshetra, but the same was dismissed by way of impugned
2 of 3
Regular Second Appeal No.4881 of 2010 (O&M) {3}
judgment and decree dated 15.09.2010. Hence this regular second appeal.
During the course of hearing, when confronted with the
maintainability of the appeal in view of Section 102 Civil Procedure Code
as the dispute involved in the appeal is less than `25,000/-, learned counsel
for the appellant does not dispute this fact. Thus, considering the nature and
value of the dispute, the present appeal is not maintainable.
Dismissed.
December 13, 2022 ( MANOJ BAJAJ )
ramesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
