Bhagwan Chand vs Gurmeet Chand on 2 March, 2009

                                      1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                         RSA No. 3768 of 2008.
                         Date of Decision: 2.3.2009
                                    ***

Bhagwan Chand
                                                        .. Appellant
            VS.

Gurmeet Chand
                                                       .. Respondent.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,

Present:-   Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate
            for the appellant.
            ***

ARVIND KUMAR, J.

After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below the
defendant has approached this Court through this regular second appeal and
has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the the trial court
as well as first appellate court dated 27.4.2006 and 3.4.2008 respectively, by
dint of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery has been
decreed for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- i.e. Principal amount along with
interest at the rate of 8% from the date of execution of pronote and receipt
till the decision of the suit, besides future interest @ 6% per annum.

It is apparent that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for
recovery against the defendant-appellant while relying upon the receipt and
pronote dated 14.5.2001 whereby the defendant took a loan of
Rs.1,10,000/-. The aforesaid loan was to carry interest @ 2% P.M. From
the facts it emerges out that although the stand of the defendant was that the
above-said pronote and receipt are forged one and the thumb impressions
appearing thereon are not of him, but nothing worth was produced by him to
substantiate his said plea. Besides his bald statement and self serving
statements of DW.2 Rajinder Kumar, no cogent and convincing evidence
was produced by the appellant in support of his allegations of forgery and
fraud. Even no expert was produced to prove that the thumb impressions
appearing on the receipt and pronote are not of him. That apart nothing was
2

produced by the appellant to show any alleged business transactions with
Om Parkash, the alleged relative of the plaintiff, during the course of which
his signatures were obtained by them on blank papers, as alleged by the
defendant. Thus, both the courts below on the strength of testimonies of
PW.1 Hardip Singh, the scribe of the receipt and pronote and PW3 Ved
Parkash, the attesting witness coupled with that of plaintiff himself, who in
one voice deposed about the execution of said document by the defendant in
their presence and the fact that in the register of deed writer there was an
entry Ex.P3 bearing the thumb impressions of defendant, concurrently held
the due execution of pronote and receipt dated 14.5.2001. Thus, once the
instrument was found to be duly executed by defendant, the Court below
while drawing presumption rightly held that it was for consideration and
that since the defendant-appellant failed to return the loan amount,
therefore, he is liable to return the same along with interest, as referred to
above.

The findings arrived at by both the courts below need no
interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises
for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
March 2,2009
Jiten