Gurcharan Singh And ORS v. Gajjan Singh And ANR

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:22.05.2019 Gurcharan Singh and others ... Appellants Vs.

Gajjan Singh and another ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellants.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) C.M.No.10973-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands allowed.

The appellant-defendants have not been successful in defending the suit for damages filed by the respondent-plaintiff in respect of an incident occurred on 15.10.2006 whereby certain injuries caused on persons.

It was alleged that the plaintiff remained admitted in the hospital for long time and in criminal case, there were about 12 defendants, few of them have been acquitted and few remained convicted and the appeal

{2} was affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. However, the criminal revision is stated to be pending before this Court.

The defendants raised the objection qua maintainability of the suit and denied the incident and further asserted that the matter is already sub-judice. The suit could not have been proceeded further. Both the parties led extensive evidence.

The plaintiff in support of the pleadings examined doctor and witnesses and brought on record the medical bills to prove that he remained admitted in the hospital and undergone the various treatment and incurred expenses thereon.

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendants submitted that since few of the defendants have been acquitted, it would be very difficult to determine the decretal amount deposited in the execution application. The decision of regular second appeal may be kept in abeyance.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, appraised the judgments and decrees as well as record of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Manuja.

As regards the recovery of amount amongst the co-defendants, the trial Court was not called upon to settle the dispute in the absence of any proof of privity amongst the co-defendants. It would be open for the appellants to take the remedy in accordance with law but fact of the matter is that respondent-plaintiff in order to sustain the claim regarding damages

{3} had led the direct and cogent evidence. The factum of pendency of the revision petition, would not make any difference as it is a case of settlement amongst the co-defendants/co-accused.

The arguments of Mr. Manuja, Advocate have not been able to bring the case within the realm of illegality and perversity to form a different opinion than the one arrived at by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 22, 2019 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No