Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Didar Singh on 16 January, 2023
RSA-137-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-137-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision: 16.01.2023
Avtar Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Didar Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate with
Ms. Shikha Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
*****
H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)
Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Didar
Singh had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.6,77,600/- i.e.
Rs.4,40,000/- as principal amount and Rs.2,37,600/- as interest thereon
@ Rs.1.50% per month from 01.06.2010 to 30.05.2013 against
defendant Avtar Singh, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated
01.06.2010 on the averments that the defendant had borrowed an
amount of Rs.4,40,000/- from the plaintiff repayable with interest
@1.50% per month on 01.06.2010, executing a pronote and receipt of
even date in favour of the plaintiff, attested by Sukhdev Singh and
Balkar Singh. The defendant had appended his thumb impressions on
such documents. The loan had been raised by the defendant from the
plaintiff for the purpose of construction of house and to meet his
1 of 6
RSA-137-2018 (O&M) -2-
domestic needs. He had promised to return the loan amount with
interest to the plaintiff as and when demanded by him. The plaintiff
called upon the defendant several times to return the loan amount with
interest but the defendant put off the matter on one pretext or the other
and thereafter finally refused to do so, giving rise to a cause of action
to the plaintiff to bring the suit in question.
2. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written
statement, contesting the suit, raising various legal objections,
contending that the suit was not maintainable; the plaintiff had
concealed the material facts from the Court; no cause of action had
arisen to the plaintiff to bring the suit; the plaintiff lacked locus standi
to file the suit etc. On merits, the defendant denied having borrowed a
sum of Rs.4,40,000/- from the plaintiff or executing the pronote and
receipt in his favour on 01.06.2010 or undertaking to return the alleged
amount with interest @ 1.50% per month. The defendant contended
that he is a matriculate, as such, an educated person, appending his
signatures on the necessary documents. Therefore, there was no
question of his putting thumb impression on pronote and receipt.
Refuting the remaining assertions, the defendant prayed for dismissal
of the suit.
3. No replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties,
following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-
from the plaintiff on the basis of pronote and receipt dated
2 of 6
RSA-137-2018 (O&M) -3-
1.6.2010? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recover the suit amount as claimed? OPP
3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP
4. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 01.06.2010 relied upon
by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated document? OPD
5. Relief.
4. During the course of evidence of plaintiff, he got his own
statement recorded as PW-1 besides examining Balkar Singh as PW2,
Sukhdev Singh as PW3, Gurnam Singh as PW4. The plaintiff relied
upon various documents. With that his evidence got closed.
5. In rebuttal, defendant Avtar Singh got his own statement
recorded as DW1 and repeated on oath his case as given in the written
statement. He also relied upon several documents.
6. After hearing arguments, the trial Court of Addl. Civil
Judge (Sr. Divn.) Fatehgarh Sahib, decided issues No.1 to 5 in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant and issue No.6 in favour of
the defendant and against the plaintiff. Resultantly, vide judgment and
decree dt.28.10.2015, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for
recovery of Rs.4,40,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from 01.06.2010 till
date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree
till actual realization with costs of the suit.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by
the trial Court, the defendant had preferred an appeal before District
3 of 6
RSA-137-2018 (O&M) -4-
Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, however, that appeal was dismissed, vide
detailed judgment and decree dt. 25.09.2017.
8. Now the defendant has knocked at the door of this Court
by way of filing the present Regular Second Appeal.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
besides going through the record and I find that there is absolutely no
merit in the appeal.
In this case, the trial Court as well as Ist Appellate Court
have returned concurrent findings that defendant Avtar Singh had
borrowed a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.06.2010
agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 1.50% per month executing
pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 in his favour. However, he has not
returned any amount to the plaintiff against principal or interest. The
findings recorded by the Ist Appellate Court of District Judge,
Fatehgarh Sahib are to the similar effect. Although the defendant had
come up with a plea that in the month of May, 2012 there arose dispute
between the parties to the suit regarding some property which was later
on compromised, vide writing dt. 02.05.2012 in the presence of
Gursewak Singh, Sarpanch of Village Khera and Piara Singh witness
and the writing was got attested from Mrs. Kamaljit Kaur Dumna,
Notary Public, Fatehgarh Sahib, the same being Ex.D1. It was signed
by the parties and other witnesses in terms of which the plaintiff
undertook to make the payment of Rs.80,000/- to the defendant upto
10.05.2012 which was duly paid by him to defendant thereby showing
4 of 6
RSA-137-2018 (O&M) -5-
that the defendant was not under any liability to pay Rs.4,40,000/- to
the plaintiff and if it was so then the plaintiff would not have paid
Rs.80,000/- to the defendant under Ex.D1, rather it could have been
adjusted towards alleged liability of Rs.4,40,000/-. However, that
version was rejected by the Courts below for the reason that defendant
had failed to produce any evidence that the thumb mark on pronote and
receipt purportedly appended by him were of some other person and
not of the defendant.
10. Similarly as regards compromise Ex.D1, it was not
specifically pleaded by the defendant in the written statement,
therefore, it could not be relied upon and taken into consideration by
the Court. The defendant had failed to establish that the pronote and
receipt are forged and fabricated documents. It may be mentioned here
that though the defendant had sought amendment of written statement
to take plea with regard to compromise Ex.D1 at the stage of first
appeal, however, that application was dismissed by learned District
Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dt. 25.09.2017. He had filed an
application U/o 41 Rule 27 CPC for permission to exhibit certified
copy of order dt. 16.02.2011 by way of additional evidence which
order had been passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Fatehgarh
Sahib in civil suit titled as Balkar Singh and Ors. Vs. Avtar Singh &
Ors., however, that application was also dismissed by the Court of Ist
Appellate Authority of District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dt.
5 of 6
RSA-137-2018 (O&M) -6-
25.09.2017, with such concurrent findings being there in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant.
11. The impugned judgments are quite detailed, well reasoned,
based upon proper appraisal of evidence and correct interpretation of
law. No illegality or infirmity therein is found to be there. There is no
ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees passed
by both the Courts below in Regular Second Appeal. No substantial
question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is found to be without
merit and is dismissed accordingly.
16.01.2023 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
6 of 6
