RSA No. 3484 of 2006 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
...
RSA No. 3484 of 2006
Date of decision: November 25,2008
Mangal Ram ..Appellant.
Versus
Roshan Lal ..Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. O.P.Gaba, Advocate
for the respondents.
...
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.
This is defendant’s second challenging the judgment and decrees
of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of
Rs.54000/- (i.e., Rs.36000/- as principal amount and Rs. 18000/- as interest) has
been decreed with future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum on the principal
amount of Rs.36000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the
decretal amount. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.54000/- against the appellant/defendant(i.e., Rs.36000/- as principal amount
and Rs. 18000/- as interest @ 2 % per month) on the averment that defendant
borrowed an amount of Rs.36000/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998 and executed
pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in consideration thereof agreeing to
pay the said amount on demand @ 2 % p.m. The plaintiff requested the
defendant to make payment of loan amount along with interest and also
presented him pronote and receipt for return of the said loan amount along with
interest but the defendant refused to pay the said amount along with interest
which has necessitated in filing the present suit.
The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement inter
alia submitting therein that he has neither executed the pronote and receipt nor
he has received Rs. 36000/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998. The pronote and
RSA No. 3484 of 2006 2
receipt were alleged to be forged and fabricated documents. All other allegations
were denied and admittedly of the suit was prayed for.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed
on 2.11.2001 by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the defendant borrowed a loan of Rs. 36000/- from the
plaintiff on 16.6.1998 and executed pronote and receipt for this
loan ? OPP
2. Whether the defendant agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 2
% per month ?OPP
3.Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated ?OPP
4. Relief.
After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel
for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent holding
that the plaintiff-respondent proved the execution of the pronote Ex.P1 and
receipt Ex. P2 before the trial Court. However, the defendant-appellant was not
able to lead any evidence direct or circumstantial to prove that he neither
executed the said document nor received the loan amount. No evidence was
produced by the defendant-appellant to prove issue No.3 that the pronote and
receipt are forged and fabricated documents.
Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of
the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was also dismissed by the
lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006.
While dismissing the appeal, the District Judge held that the plea of
the appellant defendant that the document was forged and fabricated is not
proved on record.
Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal
challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently that the
judgment and decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside as the
appellant had denied his signatures on the promissory note and receipt and he
RSA No. 3484 of 2006 3
had requested the trial Court by filing the application that his signatures may
kindly be got compared from the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Chandigarh. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court illegally and
he had challenged the said order of the trial Court by filing Civil Revision No.631
of 2005 in this Court and the revision petition was still pending in this Court
when the trial Court decreed the suit without waiting for the decision of this Court
on his revision petition.
It has been further argued by the counsel for the appellant that
even the lower Appellate Court has not considered this fact and dismissed his
appeal. In spite of the fact that the appellant had specifically raised this issue
before the lower Appellate Court.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has
supported the judgment and decrees of the courts below and has argued that
the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that
plaintiff-respondent has proved execution of the pronote and receipt in question
whereas the appellant has failed to prove that the pronote and receipt are forged
and fabricated.
Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that the
appellant has not produced any order of this court passed in Civil Revision
No.631 of 2005 stating the proceedings before the courts below.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. I find no force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant.
In this case, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that he had
applied to the trial Court for getting his signatures compared from a Government
Hand Writing Expert and this plea was turned down without any justification and
it was his right to get his signatures compared to prove his assertion that the
pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents and
therefore, the trial Court was not justified in declining his prayer. However, there
is nothing on record of the courts below to support the plea of the appellant. The
appellant has not placed on record any facts to show that the application for
RSA No. 3484 of 2006 4
proving his signatures from the Government Hand Writing Expert was
dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant was specifically asked by this
Court to produce the record of the revision petition, even then it was not
produced. Even the learned counsel for the appellant was neither able to give
the date of the order of the trial Court rejecting his application for comparing his
signatures from the Government Hand Writing Expert nor the learned counsel
was able to given the date of filing of the revision petition in this Court. He even
was not able to produce order of revision petition. He only stated that the said
revision petition was dismissed as infructuous on 4.4.2006 by this Court. He was
unable to show under what circumstances it was dismissed as infructuous.
The record of Civil Revision No.631 of 2005 titled as Mangal Ram
Versus Roshan Lal was called from the record room of the High Court and it was
found that the said Civil Revision was filed by the appellant Mangal Ram against
the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ferozepur on
his application for sending the original pronote to the Director,Central Forensic
Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison the said order is reproduced as
under:-
” Present: Counsel for the parties.
Heard. An application has been made by the defendant
for sending the original pronote and receipt in dispute along with
specific signatures of Mangal Ram defendant to the Director,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison.
This application has been contested and denied that signatures of
defendant on the receipt and pronote are forged and fabricated as
alleged. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record. Perusal of the file reveals that case was fixed
for evidence of the defendant and the defendant is at liberty to get
the signatures of Mangal Ram compared from any Hand Writing
Finger Print Expert. As such, I do not find any merit in this
application and the same is dismissed.
RSA No. 3484 of 2006 5
To come up on 17.3.2005 for evidence of the defendant at
own responsibility.
Announced. Sd/-
14.12.2004 CJ(JD),Ferozepur"
This Civil Revision was filed on 28.1.2005 and notice of motion was
issued for 21.2.2005 for final disposal vide order dated 31.1.2005. Only dasti
process was ordered. Thereafter, the case came up on 4.4.2006 and on that
date, the counsel for the petitioner(now appellant) withdrew the revision petition.
Order dated 4.4.2006 is reproduced as under:-
“Present: Shri N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
..
Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the
present revision petition. Allowed as prayed for.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
04.04.2006 Sd/-
Hemant Gupta
JUDGE"
From perusal of the above said orders, it is crystal clear that firstly
the appellant himself has not pressed the revision petition before this Court and
secondly, vide order dated 14.12.2004, the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Ferozepur has categorically stated that the case is fixed for evidence of the
defendant and the defendant is at liberty to get his signatures compared from
any Hand Writing Finger Print Expert, thus it was for the appellant himself to
prove his case.
It may also be pointed out here that admittedly Civil Revision
No.631 of 2005 was decided on 4.4.2006 whereas the first appeal was decided
by the District Judge on 21.4.2006 and the order was known to the appellant.
The appellant has also not placed on record any facts with regard to the fact that
when his evidence was closed by the trial Court and when he has moved this
application. In any case, the burden of proof to prove that the alleged pronote
and receipt are fabricated and forged documents was upon the appellant and it
was for him to lead evidence to prove this assertion. He has failed to lead any
RSA No. 3484 of 2006 6
evidence in this regard. Thus the plea raised by the appellant that his
application was dismissed without any justification and the lower Appellate Court
has not discussed this point in the judgment is without any force.
The judgment cited by the learned counsel in the case of Smt.
Gurcharan Kaur Versus Malkiat Singh etc. 1987(1) All India Land Laws
Reporter -342 is not applicable on the facts of the case. The plaintiff having
discharged his initial burden by proving the documents. It was for the defendant
to prove his plea that the document was forged and fabricated and the
defendant having failed to discharge his burden. The courts below ere right in
passing the impugned decree.
For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal.
No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.
November 25, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
nk JUDGE