R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.186 of 2008
Date of Decision: 4.11.2008
Sadhu Singh .....Appellant
versus
Sukhdev Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
Present: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the respondent.
****
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The present regular second appeal filed by the defendant is
directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.11.2007 passed by
the lower appellate Court vide which the appeal filed by him against the
judgment and decree dated 8.11.2005 passed by the trial court
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of
pronote and receipt, i.e. 27.12.2000 till the date of realization, was
partially modified to the extent that the plaintiff was entitled to the
recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of execution of the promissory note, i.e.
27.12.2000 till the date of institution of the suit and at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of institution till realization.
On 27.12.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of
R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 -2-
Rs.1,77,000/- on interest @ 2% per month from the plaintiff and
executed a pronote and receipt therefor in his favour. The defendant
having failed to repay the borrowed amount, the plaintiff filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.2,40,000/-.
The defendant controverted the averments made in the
plaint by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary
objections therein. It was pleaded that the defendant neither took the
loan from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt therefor in
his favour, whereas, on the other hand the defendant had taken the
land of the plaintiff on lease and settled all the accounts in that regard
but the plaintiff obtained his signatures on some blank papers which
were later on converted into the pronote and receipt. Thus, the pronote
and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. The other
averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of
the suit was made.
From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed
various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of
Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of execution of the pronote, i.e. 27.12.2000, till the date of
realization. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant took the matter in appeal
and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
2.11.2007 modified that of the trial court to the extent that the plaintiff
was entitled to the recovery of Rs.1,77,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the promissory note,
i.e. 27.12.2000, till the date of institution of the suit and at the rate of 6%
R.S.A.No.186 of 2008 -3-
per annum from the date of institution till realization. Except the above
mentioned modification with regard to the claim of interest, the appeal
was dismissed by the lower appellate court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned judgments with their 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 could not 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 evidence
which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second
appeal. The Courts below had concurrently held that execution of the
pronote, Exhibit P1, and the receipt, Exhibit P2, had been duly proved
by the plaintiff by examining the attesting witness of the pronote and
receipt. Moreover, admission of his signatures on the said documents
by the defendant lent support to the case of the plaintiff. Neither the
interest which had been awarded is excessive nor the findings which
had been recorded regarding the debt for the recovery of which, the suit
had been decreed, are erroneous and, therefore, no error could be
found in the findings recorded by the courts below.
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.
November 4, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE