Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh Alias Gurdev Singh Gill vs Iqbal Singh on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044100
2024:PHHC:044100
RSA No.3572 of 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.125
Case No. : RSA No.3572 of 2023
Date of Decision : April 01, 2024
Gurdev Singh @ Gurdev Singh Gill .... Appellant
vs.
Iqbal Singh .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Dr. Payel Mehta, Advocate
as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. CM-12822-C-2023 : For the reasons mentioned in the application,
the same is allowed and delay of 111 days in filing the present appeal is
hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of.
2. Main Appeal : The instant appeal has been filed against the
concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the
plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts, necessary for proper adjudication of the present
appeal, are that the plaintiff/appellant (hereinafter referred to as - the
plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,72,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- as principal
amount and Rs.72,000/- as interest @ 1%), on the basis of cheque bearing
No.33398 dated 16.06.2013, drawn on IDBI Bank, GT Road, Moga. The
defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as - the defendant) is brother-
in-law of the plaintiff. On request of defendant that he was in urgent need of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044100
2024:PHHC:044100
money and would return the same in short period, the plaintiff issued the
aforesaid cheque dated 16.06.2013 worth Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendant
withdrew the said amount in presence of witnesses and promised to re-pay
the same along with interest. However, later he refused to repay the
aforesaid amount.
4. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that neither he
borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor he had any such necessity to
borrow any amount. Rather, it was the debt which was cleared by the
plaintiff through the aforesaid cheque as in family transaction, the aforesaid
amount was due towards the plaintiff and he had simply discharged his
liability by issuing the cheque.
5. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined Amandeep Singh as
PW-1 and Abhay Ananad, Assistant Manager of IDBI Bank as PW-3. He
himself stepped into the witness box as PW-2. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff also tendered a copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-13 as Ex.P-X.
6. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness box
as DW-1 and tendered some documents in support of his case.
7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the case file.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the defendant
has denied the receipt of any amount by way of cheque from the plaintiff.
Simple denial on the part of defendant that he did not owe any amount to the
plaintiff cannot be made basis for holding that he did not receive any amount
and plaintiff has no right to recover the same.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044100
2024:PHHC:044100
9. After carefully considering the submissions of learned counsel for
the appellant, I am of the view that the plaintiff is required to stand on his
own legs. It is a simple case where a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued in
favour of the defendant and he got the same encashed. Neither any
document was prepared at that time nor there was any promise in writing on
the part of the defendant for the repayment of the said amount. Cheque is a
lawful tender of the amount. In the absence of any document whereby holder
of cheque has promised to repay the amount of cheque the drawer of cheque
cannot claim return of the said amount on mere oral assertions. So, the
Courts below have rightly held that there is no evidence on record except the
bald statement of the plaintiff and have rightly not believed the said
statement.
10. There is nothing on record to show that the findings recorded by
both the courts below suffer from any infirmity, illegality, perversity or are
based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence on record. No question
of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal,
which is accordingly dismissed in limine.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
April 01, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika /renu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
3 of 3
