Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar Singh vs Jangir Singh on 31 August, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 31.8.2012
RSA No. 2763 of 1993
Kartar Singh ......Appellant
vs.
Jangir Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - None for the appellant.
HEMANT GUPTA, J Defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned Courts below whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 4400/- was decreed.
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant took a cash loan of Rs. 4000/- from the plaintiff on interest @ of Rs. 1.56 paise percent per month and had executed a pronote and receipt (Ex. P-1 and P-2) in his favour. Many request were made by the plaintiff to defendant to pay the due amount but the same has not been refunded by the defendant.
In the written statement, defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and he also denied the execution of any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 25.7.1989. He also denied that he ever agreed to pay any interest on the said amount. Additional pleas have also been taken that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit.
After the completion of the pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -
1. Whether the defendant executed a valid pronote and receipt dated 25.7.1989 on receipt of Rs. 4000/-
in favour of the plaintiff? OPP.
RSA No. 2763 of 1993-2-
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the alleged pronote and receipt are the result of fraud and without consideration.
3. To what rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled.
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD.
5. Whether the plaintiff is money lender without license? If so its effect?OPD.
6. Whether there are material alteration and cuttings in the pronote and receipt?OPD
7. Relief.
The learned trial court decreed the suit after considering the evidence led by the parties. The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by learned trial Court in appeal. The only point urged before the learned First Appellate Court was that the plaintiff failed to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt.
Both the courts have recorded a finding of fact that the respondent has proved the execution of the pronote and receipt. The defendant has admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. The plaintiff in his cross examination has clearly stated that the defendant signed these documents and they were read over and explained to defendant.
Still aggrieved defendant has filed the present second appeal. No substantial question of law has been framed in the memo of appeal nor has been framed thereafter. Learned trial Court has recorded a firm finding of fact on the basis of the evidence lead that the pronote and receipt (Ex. P-1 and P-2) stand RSA No. 2763 of 1993 -3- proved. Such finding of fact cannot be permitted to be disputed in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 31.8.2012 preeti