I.D. Sharma vs Manju

Sanjay Karol, J.—Plaintiff-appellant Shri I.D. Sharma, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2012, titled as I.D. Sharma v. Manju, whereby judgment and decree dated 8.6.2012, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 603 of 2009, titled as I.D. Sharma v. Manju, stands affirmed.

Plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant-respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- as general damages in lieu of mental tension and agony caused to him by the defendant. Defendant resisted the suit, denying the averments made by the plaintiff.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of general damages with cost, as alleged? OPP

Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit, as alleged? OPD

Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged? OPD

Whether the suit is under valued for the purpose of curt fees and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD

Relief.

Trial Court dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree, so passed by the trial Court, stand affirmed by the first appellate Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Trial Court has fully considered the material so placed on record by the parties. I find that the plaintiff could not establish that on 26.9.2007, defendant hurled abuses on him. The Courts below have found the testimony of the plaintiff not to be inspiring in confidence.

As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.