[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshwar Yadav vs Veeran Singh on 3 December, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31983
1 CR-4-2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 3 rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 4 of 2010
RAMESHWAR YADAV
Versus
VEERAN SINGH
Appearance:
Mr. Shivendra Singh Raghuvanshi - Advocate for applicant.
None for respondent.
ORDER
The civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the
judgment and decree dated 06/11/2009 passed by 3 rd Additional District
Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 2-B/2009, thereby reversing the
judgment and decree dated 10/12/2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge,
Class-1, Pohari, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 1-B/2006 and suit filed by
applicant for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are
that applicant/plaintiff filed a civil suit against defendant by pleading inter
alia that defendant had taken an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and executed a
promissory note. Since defendant refused to return the amount, therefore,
plaintiff, by registered notice dated 17/01/2006, demanded his money back.
As the amount has not been refunded, therefore, suit was filed for recovery
of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at the rate of Rs. 3/- per month.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31983
2 CR-4-2010
3. Defendant filed his written statement and denied the execution of
any promissory note. He also denied that he had ever taken loan of Rs.
15,000/-. It was claimed that since defendant has filed a civil suit against
plaintiff, therefore, by way of counterblast, suit in question has been filed.
4. The Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence,
decreed the suit.
5. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,
respondent/defendant preferred an appeal, which has been allowed and
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been set aside.
6. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court, it
is submitted by counsel for applicant/plaintiff that plaintiff has proved that
defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 15,000/- and had also executed a
promissory note.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.
8. Respondent/defendant has denied the execution of promissory note
Exhibit P-1 and receipt of promissory note Exhibit P-2. Defendant has
examined the Handwriting Expert to show that promissory note Exhibit P-1
and its receipt Exhibit P-2 were not executed by him. The Trial Court has
rejected the report of Handwriting Expert by its finding recorded in
paragraph 7 and held that defendant is trying to suppress the material facts
and although he had initially refused to identify his signature on the sale
deed Exhibit P-5 but later on he also admitted his signature on the said
document. Thus, an adverse inference was drawn against defendant, and it
was held that defendant is in habit of signing differently at different places.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31983
3 CR-4-2010
However, Appellate Court has considered the evidence of Rameshwar (PW-
1) and Parvat Singh (PW-2) to hold that these witnesses have not stated that
defendant has signed the promissory note and receipt Exhibits P-1 and P-2 in
their presence.
9. Aforesaid finding given by the Appellate Court runs contrary to the
evidence led by Rameshwar (PW-1) and Parvat Singh (PW-2).
10. Rameshwar (PW-1) in paragraph 1 of his affidavit under Order 18
Rule 4 CPC has stated as under:
"तथा वीरनिसंह ने मुझ शपथकता के हतोमेशर नोट एवं धन ाि क रसीद
स पा दत कर उस पर अपने ह ता र कए तथा सा ी गण के ह ता र सा ी के
प म कराए थे।"
11. Similarly, Parvat Singh (PW-2) has stated in paragraph 1 of his
affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC as under:
"वाद से ितवाद वीरन िसंह ने दनांक 21-01-2003 को 15000=00 पं ह हजार
पये नगद उधार उधार ा कए थे इस बाबत ोमेशर नोट एवं पावती रसीद
क िलखा पड़ स पा दत क क जस पर सा ी के प म वीरन िसंह ने मेरे व
च पालाल के ह ता र कराए थे तथा वीरन िसंह ने अपने ह ता र कए थे।"
This witness was cross-examined, and he has stated that promissory
note was executed in his presence. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination,
he has stated that promissory note was signed by him, Veeran and Champalal
at one place. He denied that Veeran had not signed the promissory note in his
presence. He denied that he, Veeran, or Champalal have put their forged the
signatures.
12. Thus, the findings recorded by Appellate Court in paragraph 13
that Rameshwar (PW-1) and Parvat Singh (PW-2) did not state that Veeran
had signed the promissory note in their presence is contrary to record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31983
4 CR-4-2010
13. Appellate Court, in paragraph 15 of its judgment, has held that
Rameshwar (PW-1) and Parvat Singh (PW-2) have specifically stated that
they are illiterate persons and cannot read, and disbelieved their evidence that
money was given on 21/01/2003.
14. So far as the illiteracy of Rameshwar (PW-1) and Parvat Singh
(PW-2) is concerned, even if they were not able to read out that what has
been mentioned in the promissory note, still it would not support the defence
of defendant/respondent. Both the witnesses have specifically stated that an
amount of Rs. 15000/- was given to Veeran in their presence.
15. So far as the report of handwriting expert is concerned, the Trial
Court has specifically found that defendant is in habit of putting different
signatures at different places. It was also held that in fact, signature on the
written statement appears to have been made by a person who has written the
written statement & not the defendant, and therefore, it was held that there is
bound to be difference in the signatures of defendant on the promissory note
as well as on the written statement. Plaint is a typed one, whereas written
statement is in writing. Appellate Court did not give any cogent reason for
reversing the aforesaid findings recorded by the Trial Court.
16. Rameshwar (PW-1) has specifically stated that defendant has filed
different suit against him after the presentation of present suit. Even
Veeran/defendant had denied his signature on the ordersheet of the Trial
Court.
17. Alok Kumar Jain (DW-2), who had compared the signatures, has
specifically stated that he had compared the signature of Veeran available on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31983
5 CR-4-2010
the ordersheet dated 08/04/2006, written statement, and Vakalatanama. As
already pointed out, defendant Veeran had denied his signatures on
ordersheet dated 08/04/2006. He also denied his signature on ordersheet
dated 13/08/2007. It is really surprising that Veeran had denied his
signatures, which were made on the ordersheets of the Trial Court. However,
unfortunately, Trial Court did not take signatures of defendant on the
deposition sheet.
18. Be that as it may. Trial Court has elaborately considered the
evidence of Veeran (DW-1). Trial Court, has also held that since defendant
has denied his signature on the ordersheet dated 08/04/2006, therefore,
comparison of disputed signature with the signature on ordersheet dated
08/04/2006 was not possible. Trial Court has also held that signatures on the
written statement and Vakalatanama were not signed in presence of the
Court or in presence of the counsel for plaintiff & therefore they cannot be
treated as admitted signatures of defendant.
19. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
Appellate Court should not have reversed the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court.
20. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 06/11/2009, passed by 3 rd
Additional District Judge, Shivpuri in Civil Appeal No. 2-B/2009, is hereby
set aside.
21. Ex-consequenti, judgment and decree dated 10/12/2007 passed by
Additional Civil Judge, Class-1, Pohari, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 1-
B/2006 is hereby restored.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31983
6 CR-4-2010
22. Civil Revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AKS
