R.S.A. No. 3739 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 3739 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 9.12.2008
Satbir
..Appellant
v.
Ram Chander
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. S. P. Chahar, Advocate for the appellant.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
The defendant is in second appeal before this Court against
concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the
respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 54,600/- along with interest was decreed.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit with the
contention that the appellant-defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on
20.6.1998 from him. The loan was carrying interest @ 2% per month. As
acknowledgement of the loan, pronote and receipt were executed on which the
appellant-defendant had put his thumb impressions. As the loan amount was not
returned in spite of issuance of registered notice dated 11.10.2000, the suit was
filed.
The defendant-appellant in defence stated that in fact he had
borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from Kure son of Pehlad, resident of Siwana and
pronote and receipt were executed therefor. It was at that time that certain more
papers were got thumb marked from him which have been misused. Otherwise, he
had not taken any loan from the respondent-plaintiff.
In support of the claim, the respondent-plaintiff examined four
witnesses, who corroborated the version stated in the plaint and also stated that
money was paid to the appellant- defendant in their presence, who had thumb
marked the pronote and the receipt. Report of the Handwriting and Finger Print
Expert was also obtained, who opined that thumb impressions on the pronote and
the receipt were matching with that of the appellant-defendant. The defence of the
appellant-defendant was that he had never taken the loan from the respondent-
plaintiff, as it was only from Kure son of Pehlad that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was
R.S.A. No. 3739 of 2008 [2]
borrowed which was returned, was found to be misconceived. It was in this factual
matrix that the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff was decreed, as execution of
the documents was proved beyond doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant even before this Court
reiterated the same submissions as were made before the learned court below. He
submitted that documents (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2), i.e., pronote and receipt
respectively, as are sought to be relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff for
claiming Rs. 54,600/- along with interest are nothing else but a result of fraud.
However, there is nothing in support of the submission except own
statement of the appellant-defendant. As against this, the respondent-plaintiff had
not only appeared himself, but even produced Document Writer, witness to the
documents and even Kure son of Pehlad, from whom the appellant- defendant had
admitted that loan of Rs. 25,000/- was taken on the same date, besides
Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. The evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff
was unimpeachable as against bald statement of the appellant-defendant, which
was not corroborated with any other material to suggest that the pronote, sought to
be relied upon by the respondent-plaintiff, was a result of fraud. It has not been
established that there was any connivance between the respondent-plaintiff and
Kure, from whom the appellant-defendant had admittedly taken the loan. The
findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact
recorded on correct appreciation of material on record. No question of law, much
less a substantial question of law arises.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
9.12.2008
mk