Nau Nidh Finance Ltd And Another vs Prem Singh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12107 P&H

RSA No. 3365 of 2019 (O & M)                                                        1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
215
                                       *****

                                                 RSA No. 3365 of 2019 (O & M)
                                                    Date of decision : 23.9.2022


Nau Nidh Finance Ltd., Moga and another                            ......Appellants
                                        Vs.
Prem Singh and others                                          ......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:       Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate, for the appellants

               ---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)

1. This is appellants/defendants' (hereinafter referred to as 'the

defendants') second appeal. The suit for recovery filed by the respondents/

plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') was decreed by the trial

Court, and appeal against the same was dismissed.

2. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that on 5.8.2005, plaintiff

no.1 opened a Saving Bank Account with defendant no.1 at the instance of

defendants no.2 to 5 on the assertions that the amount deposited will be

returned to him with interest as and when demanded by him. The passbook

was issued to him and necessary entries regarding deposits and withdrawals

of the money by the plaintiffs were duly made therein. A sum of

Rs.4,06,920/- was outstanding in the plaintiffs' account on 31.5.2012 and

interest on the same was also added, but the defendants failed to pay either

the principal amount or the interest accrued thereupon to the plaintiffs,

resulting in filing of the suit. The defendants contested the suit by claiming

that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-had already been received by the plaintiffs

1 of 3

on 26.2.2014 through voucher signed by him but inadvertently, entry to that

effect could not be made in the passbook issued by the defendants. The suit

was stated to be not maintainable since the said amount was not deducted by

the plaintiff from the amount due, against which a suit for recovery was

filed.

3. Upon framing of issues, both the parties led their evidence

before the trial Court.

4. It is a case where the defendants have admitted opening of

account with them by the plaintiffs and issue of the passbook also. Only

claim is that an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-was returned to the plaintiffs, vide

voucher Ex.D-15, which has been denied by the plaintiffs. To prove this

relevant fact, the defendants have failed to lead any convincing evidence, as

held by the Courts below. The report of the Hand Writing and Finger Prints

Expert, DW-1, to prove the signature on the voucher Ex.D-15, has not been

believed by both the Courts below. No irregularity or illegality could be

pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiffs with regard to this finding of

the Courts.

5. Further, there is no evidence on record that the plaintiffs had

appended his signature on the voucher, Ex.D-15, as an acknowledgement of

receiving Rs.1,75,000/-from the defendants. It is a matter of record that

credit and debit entries were duly made in the plaintiff's account and the

passbook issued to him, but there is no such entry recorded therein. It has

also been recorded that the payment voucher, Ex.D-15, is dated 26.2.2014,

whereas, last entry in the passbook is of 31.5.2012, Therefore, it appears

that defendants have manufactured the voucher in question. It is also

relevant to note that original bill book and ledger account book maintained

in the normal course of business have not been placed on record by the

2 of 3

defendants in support of their claim to have paid Rs.1,75,000/- to the

plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants could not raise any question

of law to impugne the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts

below. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the well

reasoned judgments of the lower Courts, which have been rendered on

proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record by giving sound

reasoning. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.

7. Dismissed.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of

as having been rendered infructuous.

                                                      (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
                                                            JUDGE
23.9.2022
A  w   


               Speaking/Reasoned           :     Yes/No
               Reportable                  :     Yes/No




                                        3 of 3