Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs Gagandeep Singh on 6 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117941
2023:PHHC:117941
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 06.09.2023
SUKHWINDER SINGH
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
GAGANDEEP SINGH
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
for the appellant.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
CM-12016-C-2018
Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 9
days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay of 9 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-12017-C-2018
Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 66
days in filing the appeal.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly
supported by an affidavit of the applicant, the same is allowed and the delay
of 66 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M)
1. This is defendant's second appeal against concurrent findings
recorded by the Courts below vide which the suit filed by the respondent-
plaintiff for recovery of ₹2,43,000/- was decreed by the Court of Additional
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117941
2023:PHHC:117941
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M) -2-
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam vide judgment dated 07.12.2015 and the
appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the
District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 11.09.2017.
2. The respondent/plaintiff-Gagandeep Singh filed a suit for
recovery of ₹2,43,000/- against the appellant-defendant. The case of the
respondent-plaintiff was that the appellant-defendant had obtained a loan of
₹1,80,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff on 30.04.2009. A pronote and a
receipt had been executed. The loan had been agreed to be returned alongwith
interest @ 12% per annum. Since the amount was not repaid, the suit was
filed.
3. The suit was resisted by the appellant-defendant. Preliminary
objections with regard to locus standi, cause of action, the respondent-plaintiff
not having approached the Court with clean hands, the pronote and receipt
dated 30.04.2009 being forged and fabricated etc. were raised. On merits, it
was denied that the appellant-defendant had obtained a loan of ₹1,80,000/-
from the respondent-plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the father of the
respondent-plaintiff had got FIR No.16 dated 04.12.2010 under Section 420
IPC registered at Police Station Bhikhi, Disrict Mansa, against the appellant-
defendant wherein it had been alleged that the father of the respondent-
plaintiff had strained relations with the appellant-defendant for two and a half
years preceding to the filing of the FIR and, therefore, under the
circumstances, there was no question of the respondent-plaintiff advancing
any loan to the appellant-defendant.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the
following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover
Rs.1,80,000/- from the defendant with interest, if so, at
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117941
2023:PHHC:117941
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M) -3-
what rate? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action and locus
standi to file the present suit? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and
conduct from filing the present suit? OPD
5. Relief."
5. Parties led their respective evidence.
6. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff
finding the pronote and receipt to have been validly executed and no evidence
having been led by the appellant-defendant to prove that no such loan had
been advanced to him or that the pronote and the receipt were forged and
fabricated. The appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff also came to be
dismissed by the First Appellate Court leading to the filing of the present
appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts
below gravely erred in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. It
has been submitted that the execution of the pronote and the receipt had not
been proved and, under the circumstances, there was no occasion for the
Courts below to have decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff and to
have dismissed the appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial
Court.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the appellant.
10. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, it would be essential
to observe that that the requirement of framing of a substantial question of law
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117941
2023:PHHC:117941
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M) -4-
in second appeal in terms of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and as had been laid down in various pronouncements by the
Hon'ble Apex Court including Hero Vinoth (minor) versus Seshammal 2006
(5) SCC 545, was subsequently held to be not there by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. It was held that in the States of Punjab and Haryana, it is the
provisions of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which would be applicable and,
therefore, Section 100 CPC would not hold the field and, accordingly, there
would be no requirement of framing substantial question of law in second
appeal. With regard to the States of Punjab and Haryana, it was so held in
Kirodi (Since Deceased) through his Lr. Versus Ram Parkash & Ors. 2019
(3) R.C.R. (Civil) and Satyender and Ors. Versus Saroj and Ors. 2022 (12)
Scale 92 respectively.
11. The respondent-plaintiff based his claim upon the pronote (Ex.
P1) and the receipt (Ex.P2), both executed on 30.04.2009 by the appellant-
defendant. Apart from this, the respondent-plaintiff examined one Mahatma
Lal as PW-2 who duly deposed that the pronote and the receipt (Ex. P1 and
P2) had been filled by him on the instructions of the appellant-defendant and
that the same had been read over and explained to him. The appellant-
defendant, after admitting the contents of the same to be correct, had put his
thumb impressions upon the same. This witness duly admitted his own
signatures as well on both the documents. Apart from this, the respondent-
plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and produced the pronote and
receipt in evidence.
12. On the contrary, the appellant-defendant could not lead any
evidence worth its name to buttress his claim that the pronote and the receipt
were forged and fabricated. Merely because the father of the respondent-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117941
2023:PHHC:117941
RSA-4523-2018 (O&M) -5-
plaintiff had got some FIR registered against the appellant-defendant would
not be sufficient to disprove the pronote and the receipt. The appellant-
defendant could have examined some expert to prove that his thumb
impressions were not there on the pronote and the receipt. This, however, was
not done. It is settled law that the plea of fraud and that of forgery is to be
pleaded and proved by leading cogent evidence. As has been observed earlier
also, the appellant-defendant could not lead any evidence worth its name to
prove that the pronote and the receipt had not been validly executed.
13. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact based
upon evidence which, in the considered opinion of this Court, are not liable to
be interfered with in second appeal.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not
find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
06.09.2023 JUDGE
Prince Chawla
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117941
5 of 5
