Parveen Rani And Ors vs Gurpreet Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1901 P&H

RSA No.1067 of 2021(O&M)                                         -1-

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

112
                                              RSA No.1067 of 2021(O&M)
                                              Date of decision:22.03.2022

Parveen Rani and others                                      ...Appellants

                                   Versus

Gurpreet Singh                                              ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate, for the appellants.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

The hearing of the case is being held through video

conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

While challenging the findings of facts arrived at by the first

Appellate Court, the defendants have filed the present Regular Second

Appeal.

Some facts are required to be noticed.

The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,04,500/- from the

defendants. It was alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants

Narinder Kumar purchased cotton crop from the plaintiff and in order to pay

the price of the cotton crop, he issued a cheque dated 20.04.2017, in favour

of the plaintiff, which bounced on its presentation. It was also asserted that

the defendants have inherited the property from Narinder Kumar.

The defendants contested the suit with the assertions that the

cheque is void.

The learned trial Court, wrongly, dismissed the suit on the

1 of 3

ground that the plaintiff has failed to implead the defendants properly. The

trial court observed that the defendants have been impleaded as a party only

through Narinder Kumar. The trial court further observed that Narinder

Kumar-deceased should have been impleaded through his legal

representatives.

In the first appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial

Court has been set aside. It is proved on the file that the defendants have

inherited the property from late Narinder Kumar. To that extent, the

defendants are liable.

This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

appellant and with his able assistance perused the judgments and decrees

passed by both the courts below.

The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that

there is no evidence to prove that late Sh. Narinder Kumar purchased the

cotton crop from the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-. He submits that in the

absence of the aforesaid evidence, the cheque is without consideration.

This Court has considered the submission, however, find no

merit therein.

A cheque drawn on the bank is a negotiable instrument. A

negotiable instrument carried a statutory presumption under Section 118(a)

of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, that has been issued against proper

consideration. Further, Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881,

provides for statutory presumption in favour of the holder. Moreover, the

plaintiff has appeared in evidence and deposed that late Sh. Narinder Kumar

had purchased the cotton crop. The plaintiff has also examined Kanwaljeet

Singh and Sanjot Singh to prove this fact. The First Appellate Court on

2 of 3

appreciation of the evidence has found the evidence led by the plaintiff

appears to be true and reliable.

In the absence of any material irregularity or any misreading or

non-reading of evidence, this Court while hearing the Regular Second

Appeal should not interfere.

Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.

Dismsised.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

March 22, 2022                                        (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                          JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned               : Yes/No
Whether reportable                      : Yes/No




                                       3 of 3