Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh vs Baldev Singh on 11 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:048621
1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-
RSA-2322-1996 (O&M)
Reserved on : 15.03.2023
Date of Decision : 11.04.2023
Mohan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Baldev Singh ...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
ALKA SARIN, J.
The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.1996 passed by
the First Appellate Court dismissing his suit for recovery.
The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.34,000/- taking a stand in the plaint that
the defendant-respondent took a loan of Rs.25,000/- from him and executed a
pronote and receipt in his favour which was duly attested by the witnesses. It was
further the case that the defendant-respondent agreed to pay interest at the rate of
1½% per month on the loan amount. It was further averred in plaint that the
defendant-respondent took away the original pronote and receipt by fraud and
misrepresentation from Bhupinder Singh, the son of the plaintiff-appellant, and
started alleging that he had paid the full amount to the plaintiff-appellant and he
also came to know that the defendant-respondent had got the signatures of his son
TRIPTI SAINI
2023.04.11 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:048621
2-
on some blank papers. In the written statement the stand taken by the defendant-
respondent was that the entire amount stood repaid on 14.06.1990 at the shop of
Gurmail Singh, a commission agent. He has further denied that the pronote and
receipt were taken away by fraud and misrepresentation or that the signatures of
the son of the plaintiff-appellant were obtained on blank papers. It was further the
stand of the defendant-respondent that the pronote was cancelled.
On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :
i) Whether the defendant has made full payment of
pronote and receipt dated 14.10.87 of the plaintiff and
as such pronote and receipt stood cancelled and
discharged ? OPD
ii) Relief.
The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated
19.11.1993. Aggrieved by the same the defendant-respondent filed an appeal
which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1996 and the suit of
the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that there
was sufficient evidence on the record to show that the amount was taken by the
defendant-respondent and never re-paid. Reference has been made to the
statement of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel has contended that there was
only one issue framed and the onus of the said issue was on the defendant-
respondent and the defendant-respondent failed to discharge the said onus and
hence the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court.
TRIPTI SAINI
2023.04.11 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:048621
3-
Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has
contended that the cancelled pronote has been produced on the record as Ex.D/2
and that to pay the amount he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his
account which was proved by Ex.D/3 (photocopy of the relevant page of his pass
book), Rs.15,000/- were taken from Gurmail Singh and the remaining amount of
Rs.2,000/- was paid from his own pocket and as such Rs.37,000/- was returned to
the plaintiff-appellant and that the cancelled receipt was Ex.D2/A. Gurmail Singh
DW-3 stepped into the witness box and stated that Baldev Singh had taken a loan
of Rs.15,000/- from him.
Heard.
In the present case the defendant-respondent had taken a stand that
the entire amount stood paid to the plaintiff-appellant and that in order to repay
the borrowed amount, Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank (Ex.D/3) and
Rs.15,000/- was taken as loan from Gurmail Singh (DW-3) and the remaining
Rs.2,000/- was paid from his own pocket. The cancelled receipt was also
produced as Ex.D2/A. DW-3 Gurmail Singh also stepped into the witness box to
prove the fact that Rs.15,000/- was taken as loan from him by the defendant-
respondent. The only evidence in rebuttal by the plaintiff-appellant is his own
statement. No evidence to the contrary was produced by the plaintiff-appellant.
Further, though the case has been set up that the pronote and receipt had been
taken away by fraud and misrepresentation, however, neither any details of the
fraud and misrepresentation were given nor the same was proved by leading any
cogent evidence. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no fault can be
found with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
TRIPTI SAINI
2023.04.11 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:048621
4-
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present regular
second appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,
arises for determination by this Court. The present appeal, which is wholly
devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
Dismissed.
11.04.2023 (ALKA SARIN)
tripti JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : YES/NO
TRIPTI SAINI
2023.04.11 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
