Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Kumar vs M/S Ram Chand Rakesh Kumar on 10 December, 2015
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
RSA No. 2640 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
103
C.M. Nos.7226-27-C of 2012 and
RSA No. 2640 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.12.2015
Ashwani Kumar
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/s Ram Chand Rakesh Kumar
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. P.K.Ganga, Advocate,
for the applicant/appellant.
****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.7226-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for permission to file the present appeal in a pauper forma.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant and also keeping in view the fact that the trial Court and the appellate Court have permitted him to file the suit/appeal in the capacity of a pauper forma, the present application is allowed. The applicant/appellant is permitted to file an appeal in the capacity of a pauper forma.
C.M. No.7227-C of 2012 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 61 days in filing the appeal.
The reason assigned for the delay is that though the appeal was filed within limitation but on account of non-affixation of Court fee, the PRERNA DATTA 2015.12.14 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA No. 2640 of 2012 (O&M) 2 appeal has become time barred resulting in delay of 61 days in filing the appeal. The application is supported by the affidavit of appellant.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the appellant, the present application is allowed. Delay of 61 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. RSA No. 2640 of 2012 (O&M)
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa dated 10.12.2009, whereby the suit for recovery of an amount of ` 1,51,200/- i.e. ` 1,00,000/- as principal amount and ` 51,200/- as interest calculated @ 1.60% per month w.e.f. 01.09.1999 to 30.04.2002 and for future interest, stands dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellant-plaintiff has also been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa on 02.12.2011.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have not appreciated that the appellant-plaintiff was having yearly income of about ` 10,000/-to ` 12,000/- for the last 20-22 years. He contends that if the saving capacity of the appellant could have been assessed @ ` 5,000/- per year, it would come to more than ` 1,00,000/- and, therefore, he was in a capacity to give that amount on loan to the respondent-defendant. He contends that the respondent-defendant appeared as DW-1 and admitted his signatures on the receipt dated 01.05.1996 Ex. P-1. He contends that once the signatures have been admitted on the receipt, nothing more is required to be proved with regard to the loan having been given to the respondent. On this basis, he contends PRERNA DATTA that the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below cannot sustain 2015.12.14 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA No. 2640 of 2012 (O&M) 3 and deserve to be set aside and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff decreed.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with his able assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments.
4. Dealing with the first contention with regard to the capacity of the appellant to give a loan of an amount of ` 1,00,000/-, which, he asserts, was given by him through his own sources, even if it is accepted that he was earning ` 300/- to ` 400/- per month and the income from all sources for a year was about ` 10,000/-, it cannot be accepted that he would be in a position to save ` 5,000/- in a year especially when in his evidence, he has admitted that he was doing a private job and was residing with his brother and has no saving account or locker etc. He has further admitted that his in- laws also have not given him anything in the marriage and they were also working with his brother, who is said to be a very rich man but the said brother Suresh Kumar has not been produced in evidence who would have supported such an assertion. Except for the bald statement of the appellant, there is nothing on the record to indicate his capacity to give such a huge amount as loan to the respondent. It may be added here that the report of the Tehsildar dated 28.01.2003, on an application moved by the appellant- plaintiff for being declared as a pauper, indicates that he had no landed property and he was unemployed and residing with his brother. The source of money except for his income has not been indicated, which is difficult to accept.
5. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that signatures on the receipt dated 01.05.1999 Ex. P1 are admitted by the respondent, is concerned, suffice it to say that mere PRERNA DATTA 2015.12.14 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh RSA No. 2640 of 2012 (O&M) 4 admission of signatures on the said document would not prove the contents of the receipt especially when the said contents have been denied by the respondent although he has admitted the signatures thereon. The observation of the Courts below that to prove the contents, he should have produced some evidence, which he has failed to produce and prove with regard to the source of money owned by him or arranged by him for giving such a loan. The findings, thus, recorded by the Courts below cannot be faulted with.
6. There being concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below on the facts of the case, which have been found to be based on proper appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties, there is no illegality in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Further, there is no substantial question of law in the present appeal, which requires consideration of this Court.
7. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same stands dismissed.
( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
December 10, 2015 JUDGE
pj
PRERNA DATTA
2015.12.14 10:48
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court, Chandigarh