R.S.A.No.4296 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 12818-C of 2008 and
R.S.A.No.4296 of 2008
Date of Decision: 6.01.2009
Jasvir Kaur .....Appellant
versus
Harbans Singh and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Present: Mr. H.S. Diwana, Advocate for the appellant.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The present regular second appeal filed by defendant No.2-
Smt. Jasvir Kaur is directed against the judgment and decree dated
21.3.2007 passed by the District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, affirming that
of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib dated 27.1.2005
whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- along with
interest, was decreed.
Brief facts of the case are that the defendants, who are
husband and wife, in February, 1996 told the plaintiffs that they owned a
petrol pump in America and could arrange for the plaintiffs to go there
and work on their petrol pump. The defendants came to the house of
the plaintiffs and told that the cost for sending one person to America
would be Rs.4,00,000/- and asked them to arrange for Rs.8,00,000/-. It
was pleaded that the plaintiffs gave a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the
R.S.A.No.4296 of 2008 -2-
defendants who after receiving the same told them to arrange for
Rs.2,00,000/- more. It was further pleaded that on enquiry, the plaintiffs
came to know from neighbourhood that the defendants had gone to the
house of many other persons with the same proposals. Defendant No.1
got the plaintiffs medically examined at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
Delhi and told the plaintiffs to get the character verification certificate
from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. According to the
plaintiffs when they enquired from the defendants about their departure,
they were threatened to be kidnapped. It was also pleaded that
defendant No.1 executed an affidavit that he had received Rs.6,00,000/-
from the plaintiffs and would return the same in two equal instalments
on 28.6.1997 and 28.7.1997. As the defendants had failed to repay the
aforesaid amount, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,00,000/-
along with interest accrued thereon.
The averments of the plaintiffs made in the plaint were
controverted by the defendants by filing a joint written statement and
raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the
defendants neither received Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiffs nor asked
them to arrange another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and that the affidavit
alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 was a fabricated
document. It was further pleaded that deal for sending plaintiff No.1
abroad had been struck between plaintiff and No.1 and one Jagtar
Singh in the presence of Jagtar Singh’s wife Kuldip Kaur. An
agreement in this regard was also scribed and defendant No.1 had only
signed that document as a witness. The other averments made in the
plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.
R.S.A.No.4296 of 2008 -3-
From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed
various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the defendants
took Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiffs by making assurance to send them
to America and defendant No.1 executed affidavit dated 17.6.1997,
Ex.P2. It was further held that the defendants had failed to prove that
the affidavit was forged and fabricated document. Accordingly, the trial
court vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.2005 decreed the suit of the
plaintiffs holding them entitled to recover Rs.6,45,000/- along with
pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at
the rate of 6% per annum on the principal amount only, till the
realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants
took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment
and decree dated 21.3.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial
Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second
appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the impugned judgments with his assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made efforts to
persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the
Courts below but failed to show any material on the basis of which it
could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts
below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of the evidence
available on record which may warrant interference by this Court in the
regular second appeal. The Courts below had concurrently held that
the defendants made representation to the plaintiffs and obtained
R.S.A.No.4296 of 2008 -4-
Rs.6,00,000/- from them by making assurance to send them to America
and also executed an affidavit, Ex.P2, admitting the receipt of
Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. The concurrent findings of fact
recorded by the courts below do not call for any interference,
particularly when the signatures of defendant No.1-Gurnam Singh on
the affidavit were duly identified by PW1-Sham Sunder, Stamp Vendor
and also proved by the testimony of PW3-Navdeep Gupta, document
expert and his report Ex.P3.
No question of law much less a substantial question of law
arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court.
In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal
fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
There is a delay of 549 days in filing the appeal. Since the
appeal has been dismissed on merits, no separate order is being
passed in C.M. No. 12818-C of 2008 for condonation of 549 days’ delay
in filing the appeal and the same is disposed of as such.
January 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE