Judgment:
Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 23, 2014 Bhinder Singh ..Appellant Versus Harbhinder Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
(Oral) CM No.6513-C of 2014 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and for the reasons indicated in the Civil Misc.
application, the same is allowed.
Regular Second appeal is restored to its original number and taken up for hearing today itself.
CM No.2243-C of 2011 Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and for the Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 2 reasons indicated in the civil misc.
application, the same is allowed.
Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Rs.No.802 of 2011 Instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).Malerkotla whereby suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery has been decreed, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed.
For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of fiRs.instance.
The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced.
However, brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of `1,97,500/- against the defendant on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 26.03.2002 alleged to be executed by the defendant in his favour.
It was pleaded that on 26.03.2002, defendant borrowed a sum of `1,25,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to return the same along with interest @ 2% per month.
It was further pleaded that in consideration of the loan amount, defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of marginal Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 3 witnesses.
After execution of the said pronote and receipt, the defendant did not return any amount despite repeated requests.
Hence, suit was filed.
Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement denying execution of pronote and receipt.
It has been averred that in fact plaintiff borrowed a sum of `2,88,000/- in the year 1998 from the defendant @ 2% per month in the presence of Gurmit Singh.
In the year 1999, plaintiff returned amount of `1,25,000/- to the defendant.
Further in the year 2000, plaintiff returned an amount of `3,000/- and `1,00,000/-.
Thus, the plaintiff has returned the total amount of `2,28,000/- to the defendant out of `2,88,000/- and `60,000/- is due towards the plaintiff.
It has been further averred that in order to grab the amount of `60,000/-, plaintiff has prepared a false, fictitious pronote and receipt dated 26.3.2002.
Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied.
Plaintiff filed replication controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the plaint.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court of fiRs.instance framed the following issues:- “1.
Whether on 26.03.2002, defendant borrowed a sum of `1,25,000/- and executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff?.
OPP2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest?.
If so at what rate?.
OPP3 Whether the suit is maintainable?.
OPP Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 4 4.
Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?.
OPD5 Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fictitious documents?.
OPD6 Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts?.
OPD7 Relief.”
.
The Court of fiRs.instance, after perusal of the evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit for recovery vide judgment and decree dated 16.02.2008.
Against that, defendant preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.08.2010.
Hence, this second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law formulated in para no.12 of grounds of appeal, arise for consideration in this second appeal:- “i) Whether signatures of PW3 taken thereon on the alleged pronote and the same is material altercation?.
ii) Whether the respondent proved that to discharge the liability of debt, the appellant executed a pronote and receipt?.
iii) Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated document?.
iv) Whether the alleged pronote and receipt was scribed by regular deed writer?.
Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 5 v) Whether it is crystal clear to a naked eye that there is material altercation in the pronote and receipt?.
vi) Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.8.2010 passed by ld.
Additional District Judge, Sangrur and judgment and decree dated 16.2.2008 passed by ld.
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division).Malerkotla are based on surmises and conjectures and are liable to be set aside?.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, illegal and based on misreading of evidence.
I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants.
From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the pronote and receipt have been duly proved by the witnesses.
It is further clear from the perusal of receipt (Ex.P2) that defendant had received a sum of `1,25,000/- from the plaintiff.
Writing with regard to receipt of money on receipt (Ex.P2) was written by the defendant.
The Court of fiRs.instance after appreciating the evidence on record, has recorded a finding which reads as under:- “12.
The plaintiff has proved the execution of pronote and receipt dated 26.03.2002 by examining Jaspal Singh and Rajinder Singh, attesting witnesses as well as Jarnail Singh, scribe of the pronote and receipt as PW-1.
They have categorically deposed that on 26.3.2002 the defendant borrowed a sum of `1,25,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 6 to pay the interest at the rate of 2% per month and he executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff, which was scribed by Jarnail Singh, and the contends of the pronote read over and explained to the defendant and after admitting the same to be correct, the defendant put his signature in Punjabi and also made endorsement regarding receipt of `1,25,000/- on the receipt Ex.P2.
The said testimony of PW-1 to PW-3, attesting witnesses/scribe is fully corroborated by the plaintiff.
The defendant has alleged that the pronote and receipt are forged and fictitious documents, but he has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the pronote and receipt being forged and fictitious documents.
The defendant has failed to prove whether he has made any complaint to the police or any other higher authorities regarding the alleged forgery committed by the plaintiff.
So, the sold testimony of defendant is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of the plaintiff witnesses.”
.
The said findings have also been affirmed by the lower appellate Court.
There are pure findings of fact with regard to the execution of pronote and receipt.
Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the said findings are perveRs.or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
Consequently, said findings of fact do not warrant interference in second appeal.
No question of law, much-less substantial question of law, as alleged, arises for Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.802 of 2011 (O&M) 7 adjudication in this second appeal.
No other point has been urged.
Dismissed in limine.
May 23, 2014 [Paramjeet Singh].vkd Judge Kumar Virender 2014.05.27 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document