Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhminder Singh vs Nirbhai Singh on 21 February, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 77, 2012 (2) NIJ 566 SN, (2012) 3 CURCC 624, (2012) 3 CIVILCOURTC 643, (2012) 3 CHANDCRIC 175, (2012) 4 BANKCAS 626, (2013) 4 CURCC 279
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 755 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 755 of 2012
Date of Decision : February 21, 2012
Sukhminder Singh .... Appellant
Vs.
Nirbhai Singh .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. A. S. Jattana, Advocate
for the appellant.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Defendant Sukhminder Singh, having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.
Respondent-plaintiff Nirbhai Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.5,07,500/- alleging that the defendant on 09.09.1999, borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.5% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but defendant did not repay the principal and interest amount. Accordingly, plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.3,50,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,57,500/- as interest till filing of the suit i.e. total amount of R. S. A. No. 755 of 2012 2 Rs.5,07,500/-.
Defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. The defendant also denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed any pronote and receipt for the same. The defendant alleged that he had been selling his agricultural produce through M/s Jagroop Singh Lachhman Dass, Commission Agents. The said Commission Agents obtained thumb impressions/signatures of the defendant on blank/printed papers on the pretext of getting him bonus. Defendant filed suit for rendition of accounts against the said Commission Agents. The instant suit has been filed by fabricating the impugned pronote and receipt at the instance of the Commission Agents.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam, vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of pronote till filing of the suit and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2011. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, himself appeared in the R. S. A. No. 755 of 2012 3 witness-box and also examined Gurinder Pal (PW-2) - marginal witness of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Both of them have broadly stated according to the plaintiff's version. The plaintiff also examined handwriting expert R. V. Vashista (PW-3), who opined that disputed signatures of defendant on impugned pronote and receipt tallied with his specimen signatures.
On the other hand, the defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and broadly stated according to his version.
Plaintiff's evidence is cogent and reliable. The plaintiff, besides himself appearing in the witness-box, has examined marginal witness of impugned pronote-cum-receipt, who has supported the plaintiff's version. The plaintiff has also examined handwriting expert to prove signatures of defendant on impugned pronote-cum-receipt. As against this overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff, there is only solitary bald and self- serving statement of the defendant, which is not sufficient to rebut cogent and credible evidence led by the plaintiff. The defendant impliedly admitted his signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt by alleging that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and printed papers by the aforesaid Commission Agents. However, in the witness-box, the defendant did not come with truth and denied his signatures on impugned pronote- cum-receipt. Thus, statement of defendant is not credible.
Counsel for the appellant contended that application moved by R. S. A. No. 755 of 2012 4 defendant-appellant in the trial court for additional evidence was dismissed. It was submitted that defendant, by way of additional evidence, wanted to place on record copy of a judgment, whereby defendant's suit filed against the aforesaid Commission Agents was dismissed and also copy of statement made by Jagroop Singh of said Commission Agents in the aforesaid suit, wherein he admitted that plaintiff-respondent Nirbhai Singh is his relative. Judgment of the said suit, to which respondent-plaintiff herein was not party, cannot have any bearing against the respondent-plaintiff herein in the instant lis. Even the said suit was dismissed by the said judgment and consequently, the said judgment can, in no way, favour the defendant in the instant lis. As regards statement of Jagroop Singh made in the suit, the same cannot be used as evidence against the plaintiff herein without examining Jagroop Singh himself in the instant case and affording opportunity of his cross-examination to the plaintiff herein. Moreover, even assuming that plaintiff is relative of said Jagroop Singh, merely on this ground, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. Defendant has failed to substantiate his version that the Commission Agents had obtained his signatures on blank form of pronote-cum-receipt on the pretext of getting him bonus. Solitary statement of defendant in this regard cannot be accepted to substantiate the aforesaid version.
Both the courts below have analysed the evidence led by the partied and have come to the concurrent finding to decree the suit of the R. S. A. No. 755 of 2012 5 plaintiff. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record and is the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on the basis of said evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
February 21, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE