Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahadur Singh Sahdra vs Gurdev Sandhu on 16 January, 2015
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
ARCHANA ARORA
RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and 2015.02.13 16:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision : January 16 , 2015
Bahadur Singh Sahdra
....... Appellant
Versus
Gurdev Sandhu
........ Respondents
RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M)
Bahadur Singh Sahdra
....... Appellant
Versus
Gurdev Sandhu
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:- Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
Amit Rawal, J (oral).
CM No. 13024, 5169, 5170-C of 2014 These are application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the appeals For the reasons stated in the applications, which are RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 2 duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 9 days in filing and 121 days in refiling the appeals is condoned.
The applications stand disposed of.
RSA No. 4833 and 2127 of 2014(O&M) This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals as they arise out of the same judgment and decree.
Regular Second Appeal No. 4833 of 2013 is at the instance of the appellant-defendant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for recovery for amount of `1,35,000/- plus `670/- has been decreed and the other Regular Second Appeal No. 2127 of 2014 has been filed by the appellant- defendant against the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby counter claim for a sum of `42,150/- has been dismissed.
The facts in brief are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of sum of `1,31,670/- on the ground that defendant Bahadur Singh was well known to the plaintiff and he approached the plaintiff for loan of an amount of `4,85,000/- which the defendant required for arriving at divorce settlement with his wife Tejinder Kaur and since the plaintiff knew the defendant, he agreed to give this amount by way of loan and defendant undertook to repay the said loan along with interest @ of 12% per annum. It has been pleaded that plaintiff was having an saving account in Indian Overseas Bank and out of the aforementioned amount an amount of `3,50,000/- was transferred through RTGS in the account of the defendant bearing No.1912556 and another sum of `1,35,000/- as a draft prepared in RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 3 the name of Tejinder Kaur payable at Jalandhar at the instance of the defendant was also debited from the account of the plaintiff. The defendant repaid only `4 lacs and did not pay balance amount which gave cause of action to the respondent-plaintiff to file the suit for recovery of `1,31,670/- which also contained element of interest. The suit was instituted on 24.3.2008.
The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement by raising as many as seven preliminary objections and denied that he approached the plaintiff for obtaining loan of `4,85,000/- and came out with the stand that defendant took only `3,50,000/- from the plaintiff in the month of July, 2006 that too at the rate of 6% per annum. It was further averred that a sum of `4 lacs was returned on 5.2.2007, however, no accounts were settled at the time of repayment because of the friendly relations between the parties. It was only in the month of February, 2008 when the defendant asked the plaintiff to settle the account of the transaction the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant pleaded that the episode of Tejinder Kaur had nothing to do with the transaction between the parties and name of Tejinder Kaur had unnecessarily been dragged. Maintaining of the Bank account with Indian Overseas Bank was admitted being a matter on record. The defendant also admitted receipt of transfer of `3,50,000/- but denied a sum of `1,35,000/- being debited from the account of plaintiff, much less preparation of the bank draft in favour of Tejinder Kaur.
The respondent-plaintiff filed replication and denied RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 4 amounts raised in the written statement and reiterated averments made in the plaint. While reply to paragraph 3 on merits in rejoinder the respondent-plaintiff categorically pleaded that a draft of `1,35,000/- was debited from his account at the behest of the defendant. However, the defendant also set up the counter claim for recovery of `42,120/- i.e. Sum of `36,000/- as principal and sum of `6,120/- as interest @ of 12% per annum w.e.f. March 2007 to August, 2008.
On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings the trial court framed as many as 9 issues including the issue of relief. In order to discharge the onus the plaintiff examined PW-1 Vijay Kumar Bhatt, Clerk from Indian Overseas Bank.
The respondent-plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and closed his evidence. PW-1 Vijay Kumar Bhatt was recalled in rebuttal through the testimony of Vijay Kumar Bhatt the plaintiff proved transfer of `3,50,000/- on 14.7.2006 in the account of the defendant and as well as preparation of draft of `1,35,000/- which was debited from the account of the plaintiff. The draft was prepared in favour of Tejinder Kaur payable at Jalandhar and it was also prepared on the same date i.e.14.7.2006 when a sum of `3,35,000/- transferred in the account of the appellant-defendant. The Bank vouchers were proved on record as Ex.P3 and Ex.P-4 and the transfer voucher of `3,50,000/- was also proved on record as Ex. P-
5. The appellant-defendant could not cause any dent in the cross examination of the plaintiff, much less witness of the Bank. To a RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 5 specific question in the cross examination the plaintiff ignored that he ever spoke to Tejinder Kaur about money transaction. However, he admitted the receipt of `4 lacs paid by the defendant. In rebuttal Vijay Kumar Bhatt, Clerk from Indian Overseas Bank produced debit and credit record of entry of `2,15,000/- from the saving account of the appellant-defendant and as well as stated that draft in favour of Tejinder Kaur was also prepared and a sum of `376.25 paise were also charged, from Bahadur Singh's account, for preparation of draft.
Before the trial court the plaintiff also produced on record ekrarnama Mark X and Y. During the cross examination the defendant-appellant admitted the signatures on Mark X and Y i.e. agreement for settlement of divorce between the defendant- appellant and Tejinder Kaur. The trial court on the basis of the aforementioned evidence decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, however, dismissed the counter claim of the appellant-defendant by holding that no cogent evidence had been brought on record in support of counter claim. The aforementioned judgment and decree was assailed by the defendant-appellant by filing two appeals bearing No. 9/2013 and 10/12013. Both the appeals have been dismissed by the lower appellate court and the judgment and decree of the trial court has been upheld.
Mr. Sarju Puri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that despite the fact that the appellant had admitted his signatures of Mark X and Y but the said document had not been proved in accordance with law. In support of his RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 6 averments he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.I.C of India and another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen 2010(2) CCC 315 (SC). Be that as it may, there is no dispute to the ratio decidendi laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no doubt to the proposition of law that mere exhibition of the document does not dispense with the proof which is required to be done in accordance with law. By ignoring mark X and Y even then the defendant admitted the receipt of `3,50,000/- but however, did not specifically deny preparation of draft of `1,35,000/- in the name of his wife Tejinder Kaur. When the plaintiff was cross examined by the defendant, to a specific question whether the plaintiff had met Tejinder Kaur at any point of time or not the plaintiff replied that he did not at any point of time meet Tejinder Kaur nor he knew Tejinder Kaur. Once the appellant-defendant has admitted the receipt of `3,50,000/- and repaid a sum of `4 lacs which contained element of interest, the presumption qua payment of `1,35,000/- by way of draft in favour of Tejinder Kaur which the appellant-defendant required for settlement of divorce with his wife cannot be ruled out. The appellant- defendant did not bring any evidence in support of his counter claim in order to claim a sum of `42,120/-. In the absence of any evidence, the courts below had no occasion but to dismiss the appeals.
Both the Courts below have rendered a finding of fact and law and on the basis of material on record. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the aforementioned orders of the courts below.
RSA No. 4833 of 2013(O&M)and
RSA No. 2127 of 2014(O&M) 7
No substantial question of law arise for
determination by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
January 16, 2015
archana