Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh Son Of Nahar Singh vs Bachattar Singh Son Of Bhan Singh on 5 September, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4387 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.09.2013
Surjit Singh son of Nahar Singh, resident of Mamakpur, Tehsil and
District Ludhiana.
...Petitioner.
versus
Bachattar Singh son of Bhan Singh, resident of Village Isewal,
Tehsil and District Ludhiana.
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate,
for Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate,
for the respondents.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The revision petition is against the dismissal of a money appeal filed before the District Judge, Ludhiana. The suit claim was for `3,040/- and since the appeal was less than `10,000/-, although the case was admitted as a second appeal in RSA No.2967 of 1985, this Court had passed an order dated 14.07.2011, directing the matter to be renumbered as a civil revision. The case is, therefore, brought for hearing before this Court as a revision.
2. The suit was for recovery of money alleged to have been borrowed by the defendant on a promissory note dated 04.01.1979 Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.12 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.4387 of 2011 (O&M) -2- for `2,000/- with an undertaking to repay on demand the principal with interest at 18%. There was also a receipt simultaneously executed in evidence of the borrowing. The plaintiff would state that when he had made several demands on the defendant and even after failing to secure a favourable response despite notice, he had filed a suit for recovery of money. The defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and contended that the document was a forgery. His contention was that he used to sign only in Urdu and the signatures found in the document, which were written in Punjabi, were not his signatures. The same defence was also made with reference to the alleged receipt evidencing the loan transaction.
3. Before the trial Court, elaborate evidence had been given by the plaintiff by examining himself, the scribe of the promissory note, the marginal witnesses of the promissory note, scribe for the receipt and the person, who had signed in endorsement made in the promissory note. On the side of the defendant, the defendant examined himself and two witnesses, one, a Manager of a Bank and yet another, who was a Document Writer. The trial Court assessed the evidence of the witnesses, found the evidence given as regards the loan as properly established and the instruments to be lawfully executed, and rejected the defence. The judgment had been rendered on 05.11.1982 and it appears that the defendant had preferred an appeal on 01.02.1983 and had obtained stay of the execution of the Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.12 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.4387 of 2011 (O&M) -3- decree also. At the time when the appeal was filed, certified copy of the decree and judgment had not been furnished on a plea that a copy application for the decree was made only on 10.11.1982. When the appeal was disposed of on 17.08.1985, the appellate Court did not go into the merits of the case, but dismissed it as time barred. The appellate Court would not have an argument that the defendant had applied for certified copy, but the same had not been delivered till the disposal of the case on 17.08.1985. Indeed, the defendant had sought for an adjournment on that day on 17.08.1985 on a plea that certified copy of the judgment and decree were not available and that he should be given an opportunity. The Court ought to have provided that opportunity to him to take the certified copy on record before pronouncing the judgment on merits. It unnecessarily took up the issue of limitation when it could not have even admitted the appeal, if it was not presented with the certified copy of the judgment and the decree. Having admitted it, it should have waited for the certified copy to be filed or at least he should have summoned the original file from the trial Court to assure to itself that the copy application had been filed within time and there was a justification for the defendant not to have filed the certified copies.
4. The second appeal, which was later registered as a civil revision, elaborately makes reference to the details of copy application filed and the time when it was complied with and Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.12 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.4387 of 2011 (O&M) -4- delivered to the party. The fact that the copy application itself was complied with only on 18.12.1985, that is, after the disposal of the appeal by the trial Court is clearly established. In the normal circumstances, I would not have had difficulty in accepting the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court which was obtained subsequent to the disposal of the appeal and directed the appellate Court to consider the case on merits. However, when the amount claimed was a meagre amount of `3,040/- in a suit instituted in the year 1981, I would think, referring the matter to the appellate Court for consideration of a fact would be grossly inequitable and I directed the counsel to argue the revision as if it were an appeal before the appellate Court and point out to me any fallabilities in the judgment of the trial Court and any error in the appraisal of evidence of witnesses. The counsel made a faint attempt to vindicate the defence that the promissory note and the receipt were not executed by him, but beyond these contentions, I found nothing significant about the defence. The trial Court has elaborately dealt with the quality of evidence given by the plaintiff's witnesses and has come to the conclusion that the amount had been advanced that the witnesses had seen the defendant executing the document and also rejected the plea that the defendant's alleged ignorance of Punjabi to be most artificial. The Court specifically made an observation to the effect that the defendant had admitted in Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.12 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.4387 of 2011 (O&M) -5- evidence about the receipt of notice by registered post and the fact that he did not reply to the same was taken as a circumstance for discrediting his contention that he did not receive the money or execute the document. He also found the defence of the defendant denying the knowledge of Punjabi to be 'amusing and ridiculous'. He characterized the evidence of the defendant as false deposition and drew an adverse inference on the conduct of the defendant in denying the receipt of the notice in the written statement, while he was actually admitting the same in the witness box. The Court also made reference to the evidence of DW3 through whom an attempt was made to show that the plaintiff had on an earlier occasion secured the assistance of DW3's father for scribing a promissory note. The attempt was to show that he was a professional moneylender and that the suit could not have been filed without registration. There was nothing to indicate that the plaintiff was a professional moneylender and there was not even an issue framed in that regard.
5. On an overall consideration of all the facts elicited by the trial Court and the extensive reasoning for a simple case of a promissory note that the trial Court has adopted, I cannot find any error in the trial Court's judgment for reversal even on facts. Although the case has been admitted only as a civil revision where consideration of fact is not necessary, I have undertaken this Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.12 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Civil Revision No.4387 of 2011 (O&M) -6- exercise to assure to myself that there was no need for a remand of the case to a lower appellate Court for consideration on facts for a promissory note of value of `2,000/- said to have been brought through an instrument executed in the year 1979. I find no reason to modify the judgment of the trial Court even if I may find that the appeal filed by the defendant was not barred by time.
6. I thought for a while whether I was short-circuiting the whole process and was denying to the plaintiff a right of consideration of fact by a lower appellate Court and to defendant a further right of revision to this Court. The Civil Procedure Code has undergone a further amendment and there is no scope for an appeal or revision in any claims less than `25,000/-. If the lower appellate Court has considered the case on facts, it is doubtful whether any further scope was possible before this Court in revision. The only alternative was, therefore, to examine the issue on facts themselves as an appellate Court could do. The petitioner defendant ought not to have therefore any grievance that his evidence was not fully considered. I am convinced that the judgment of the trial Court was on proper reasoning and the decree granted was fully justified.
7. The revision petition is dismissed.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.09.2013 sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev 2013.09.12 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh