RSA No.287 of 2008(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.287 of 2008(O&M)
Date of decision: 27.1.2009
Taranjit Singh ......Appellant
Versus
Daya Krishan ......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the respondent-caveator.
* * *
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
CM No.922-C of 2008
For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 87 days
in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No.287 of 2008(O&M)
This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment
and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for
recovery of Rs.2,77,750/- along with pendente lite interest at the rate of
9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the
principal loan amount till realization of the decretal amount, has been
decreed.
The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.3,35,500/- against the
appellant on the allegation that he obtained loan of Rs.2,20,000/- and
executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 25.10.2002 with
an undertaking to return the principal amount with interest at the rate of
18% per annum. The defendant was requested to return the principal
RSA No.287 of 2008(O&M) 2
amount along with interest but despite the registered notice, no amount
was returned. Hence, the suit.
Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit
stating that he neither borrowed any cash loan from the plaintiff nor did he
agreed to repay the same along with interest. It was further stated that he
never executed any alleged pronote and receipt dated 25.10.2002 in
favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt have been procured
by the defendant in collusion with the partners of M/s Gobind Traders
where the defendant used to sell his agriculture produce. All other
allegations were denied as incorrect and dismissal of the suit was prayed
for.
After considering the evidence on record and hearing learned
counsel for the parties, the Courts below recorded a finding of fact that the
defendant-appellant executed pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 on
25.10.2002 and received a cash loan of Rs.2,20,000/- from the plaintiff-
respondent. The Courts below further held that the appellant has failed to
prove on record that pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 are the result of
fraud and misrepresentation.
Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal
challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below.
At the time of motion hearing, on 17.10.2008, the following
order was passed:
“The parties in dispute have reached a settlement.
Taranjit Singh, appellant is present in the Court with his
counsel and has offered to pay Rs.3 lacs to the
respondent towards his total settlement of the decretal
amount. This offer has been accepted by the counsel
for the respondent.
RSA No.287 of 2008(O&M) 3
Taranjit Singh, appellant states that he will pay the
amount of Rs.3 lacs by way of bank draft in the name of
the respondent in three equal installments. The first
installment of Rs.1 lac shall be paid by the appellant to
the respondent on or before 30.12.2008. The second
installment of Rs.1 lac shall be paid by the appellant to
the respondent on or before 30.12.2009 and the third
installment shall be paid on or before 30.12.2010. He
also states that he shall be liable to pay the entire
arrears as per the decree with interest in case of
default.”
This case was listed on 20.1.2009 on which date, the learned
counsel for the respondent had stated that the appellant had not complied
with the order dated 17.10.2008 and to verify the said fact, learned counsel
for the appellant had sought time from this Court and the case was
adjourned for today.
Today, Sh. Abhishek Arora, Advocate appearing for the
appellant has very fairly stated that the appellant has not complied with the
order dated 17.10.2008.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the appeal.
The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a
concurrent finding of fact that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.
2,20,000/- on 25.10.2002 and executed pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and P-
2 respectively in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was also held that the
plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal loan amount of Rs.2,20,000/-
from the defendant along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per
annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till realization of the
RSA No.287 of 2008(O&M) 4
decretal amount. Learned counsel for the appellant was in fact unable to
find fault with the findings of the Courts below and has not pressed this
appeal and very fairly stated that no substantial question of law arises in
this appeal.
No merit. Dismissed.
January 27, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE