High CourtsSingle Bench

Kulwant Singh and Another vs Smt. Ram Pyari

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 30 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0203

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijender Singh Malik, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Regular Second Appeal No. 2948 of 2013 O and M
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 556 words

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is a regular second appeal brought by the defendants against the judgments and decrees dated 19.3.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Ambala City and dated 22.4.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Ram Pyari, the respondent is the plaintiff in this case who had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation against the appellants for the grievous injuries caused to her by them. She had claimed that on 2.6.2005, defendant No. 1 gave a blow with a spade [KASSI] on the head of the plaintiff while defendant No. 2 gave another blow with a spade on the right side of her lower abdomen which caused grievous injuries to her. She was taken to Monga Hospital, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt and was treated by the doctor there for 20 days.

2.

Thereafter also, she remained under treatment as an outdoor patient and got treatment from Monga Hospital. She has claimed that she has suffered badly on account of the injuries and has suffered permanent disability. She has claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was spent on her treatment. She has also stated that FIR No. 136 dated 2.6.2005 was registered against the defendants at Police Station Mullana and they have been held guilty by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.

3.

The defendants have resisted the claim made in the suit claiming the same to be not maintainable in the present form. They have claimed that their appeal against their conviction is pending before this court. The other averments of the plaint have been denied by the defendants.

4.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court.

1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest, as prayed for? OPP

2.

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3.

Relief.

5.

Taking evidence of the parties, learned trial court has held under issue No. 1 that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation from the defendants with interest @ 9% per annum for the injuries they caused to her. In the result, the suit succeeded and was decreed with costs.

6.

The appeal preferred by the defendants partly failed before learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2013 who reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 75,000/-. It is a case where the appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants in the criminal case stands dismissed by this court. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that now the appeal is pending before Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. There is nothing on record to show that any such appeal is pending before the Apex court. Moreover, evidence has been led independently in the civil suit on the strength of which the findings adverse to the appellants have been recorded. These findings cannot be challenged on the basis of result of the criminal appeal. Nothing has been argued before me to challenge the findings recorded by the courts below on the issues framed in this case. In the considered opinion of this court, no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed in limine.