R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.07.2009
Karnail Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Kundan Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 6831-C of 2009
For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, the
order dated 5.5.2009 dismissing the appeal in default, is recalled and the
appeal is restored to its original number.
RSA No. 2224 of 2008
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment
and decree dated 12.3.2008 passed by the learned Courts below,
decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent.
The plaintiff/respondent, brought a suit for recovery on the
basis of pronote and receipt, executed by the petitioner, showing that the
principal amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) was
advanced at the interest rate of 2% per month.
R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M)
-2-
The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant, on the plea
that the defendant/appellant had received no amount nor executed any
pronote. It was also specifically pleaded, that no transaction took place
in the presence of the witnesses. The pronote was said to be forged and
fabricated document. The case set up was, that he had taken land of his
maternal grandfather on lease, and the plaintiff being clever and
intelligent person, got signatures of the defendant/appellant on the blank
papers, for the purpose of security, and told him that when he will
deliver back the possession of the land, the pronote would be returned.
The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence,
recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the pronote and receipt in
favour of plaintiff were legal and valid documents. The learned Courts
below also held, that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to recover sum
of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) along with interest @ 12%
per annum from the date of transaction, future interest @ 6% per annum
was also granted. The plea of the plaintiff, that it was forged and
fabricated document, was not accepted. Consequently, the suit decreed.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the learned Courts below were justified in
rejecting the plea raised by the appellant without
discussing the same?”
In support of the substantial question of law, the learned
counsel for the appellant contends, that the reading of the judgment
would show, that though the plea was noted, but no reasons have been
given for rejecting it. The judgment and decree, therefore, is liable to be
R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M)
-3-
set aside, by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the
appellant.
This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot
be accepted. It cannot be said that the learned Courts below have not
taken note of the stand taken by the defendant/appellant. The learned
Courts below have duly recorded the stand taken by the
defendant/appellant and a concurrent finding has been recorded to hold,
that the pronote and receipt were legal and valid documents, which were
duly executed by the defendant/appellant. Once the version of the
plaintiff/respondent was accepted, it shows that the stand of the
defendant/appellant was rejected and suit decreed.
The substantial question of law raised, therefore, does not arise
for consideration in this appeal, or in any case deserves to be answered
against the appellant.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
July 24, 2009
R.S.