Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh S/O Ajaib Singh vs Jarnail Singh S/O Arjan Singh on 16 March, 2018
RSA No. 2758 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 RSA No. 2758 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 16.3.2018
Jarnail Singh ....Appellant
VS
Jarnail Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral)
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing a suit of recovery filed by the respondent on the basis of pronote. The claim of the appellant was that he had taken some money but he had returned it in different forms and at that time the respondent had torn up the pronote but it seems that either the present pronote had been cleverly kept concealed or it was forgery. Both the Courts below considered the evidence and decreed the suit.
In my opinion, the approach of the Courts below is correct. Once it was the case of the appellant that he had repaid the amount he borrowed it was incumbent upon him to lead evidence for the same and if it was his case that pronote was forged it was for him to establish the forgery.
In these circumstances, argument of learned counsel for the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2018 02:48:33 ::: RSA No. 2758 of 2012 (O&M) 2 appellant that the respondent did not prove the signature of the appellant cannot be taken to be correct. The appeal stands dismissed.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M, if any, also stand disposed of.
16.3.2018 (AJAY TEWARI)
anuradha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned - Yes/No
Whether reportable - Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 13-05-2018 02:48:34 :::