Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.1.2009
***
Charan Singh.
Appellant
VS.
Mohan Lal
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. Harbhajan Singh Sran, Advocate.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The respondent-plaintiff got instituted a suit for recovery
against the appellant-defendant with the averments that the latter took the
loan of Rs.2,30,000/- from him on 18.2.1999 vide cheque bearing No.
990252 dated 18.2.1999 for a period of two months and agreed to return the
same along with interest @ 1.5% per month, but did not return the same.
Hence, recovery of Rs.3,15,000/- including principal amount and interest
accrued thereupon was sought.
On the other hand the case of the defendant was of denial of
taking of any loan from the plaintiff.
After the contest the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and he
was held entitled for recovery of Rs.2,30,000/- along with 1% interest per
month from taking of loan till the decision of the suit. Future interest @ 6%
was also awarded to the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the defendant has
been dismissed by the first appellate court below, upholding the findings of
the learned trial court, hence this regular second appeal has been preferred
by the defendant-appellant questioning the legality of the impugned
judgments.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused
Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009 2
the paper book carefully.
The issuance of cheque in question and its encashment has been
duly proved by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the defendant has not disputed
this fact. The plea of the defendant-appellant that the said cheque was given
by the plaintiff on 18.2.1999 towards the advance payment of Combine
Harvestor, purchased by Ujagar Singh and Natha Singh for an amount of
Rs.7,66,500/- from the firm in which the defendant was one of the partner
and the self serving oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the
defendant, were not found genuine since while issuing the bill dated
12.3.1999 of Combine Harvestor, there was no mention/ deduction of the
cheque amount therein. Even the said cheque was not found issued in the
name of the firm, but in the name of defendant personally. Moreover, the
alleged purchaser Ujagar Singh and Natha Singh were also not produced
before the Court by the defendant to substantiate his said plea. Thus, taking
into account these facts, both the Courts below rightly held that the cheque
amount was paid to the defendant towards loan by the plaintiff and the
plaintiff is entitled for return of the same along with interest, as referred to
above.
Nothing has been shown to deviate from what has been
concurrently held by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings
returned by the Courts below suffer from any illegality or perversity or that
the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less
substantial question of law arises for determination in this regular second
appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
January 30,2009
Jiten