High Court
Case Details
RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR GARH 115 Gurjant Singh RSA-2009 Date of De 2009-2024 (O&M) e of Decision:20.08.2025 ... Appellant Versus Itbarjeet Singh dent ... Respondent CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR MARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:6) (cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:4)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:7)(cid:12)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:10)(cid:7)(cid:3)(cid:4) *** *** AMARINDER S RAL) DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendants are the appellants The llants before this Court challenging t ging the judgment and de nd decree dated 13.02.2024 passed by sed by the learned First Appellate Co ate Court whereby the app e appeal preferred by the respondent ndent-plaintiff was allowed and the s the suit for recovery of ry of ₹5,77,500/- (₹3,75,000/- as princ s principal and ₹2,02,500/- as interest terest @ 18% per annum annum upto 18.08.2016) on the bas he basis of pronote and receipt dat pt dated 19.08.2013, was , was decreed , with a further direction rection that the plaintiff-respondent sh ent shall be entitled to futu to future interest @ 6% per annum on um on the decretal amount from the da the date of filing of the f the suit. Earlier, the learned Trial Trial Court, vide judgment and decr d decree dated 11.03.2019 3.2019, had dismissed the said suit. 2. In brief, the facts are that the p the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit f suit for recovery of ₹5,7 ₹5,77,500/- (₹3,75,000/- as princip principal and ₹2,02,500/- as interest terest @ 18% per annum annum upto 18.08.2016) on the bas he basis of pronote and receipt dat pt dated 19.08.2013 titled titled as “Itbarjeet Singh Vs. Gurjan rjant Singh”. The case of the plaint
Legal Reasoning
plaintiff is that the defend defendant-appellant borrowed a sum o sum of ₹3,75,000/- in cash from him him on PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -2- 19.08.2013 and and executed a pronote and receipt receipt in his favour in the presence sence of witnesses, with a with an assurance to pay interest @ 1 t @ 18% per annum. The said amou amount was to be returne returned on demand. However, when when the plaintiff demanded repayme payment, the defendant fai ant failed to pay even a single penny penny. The plaintiff issued legal noti al notice dated 27.07.2016 7.2016, but the same was returned urned with the report of refusal. Ev al. Even thereafter, despi despite repeated demands, the defe e defendant failed to pay the amou amount. suit. Hence, the suit. 3. Upon notice of the suit, the defen Upo defendant appeared and filed writt written statement throug through their counsel denying exec execution of pronote and receipt ipt or borrowing any am any amount. It was alleged that the pla the plaintiff and his family members h bers had filed six differen ifferent false suits for recovery agai y against the defendant and his fam is family members on th on the basis of forged and fabric fabricated pronotes and receipts, ipts, all purportedly exec executed on the same date with on ith only interchanged witnesses. It w s. It was further averred t erred that in earlier proceedings rega s regarding surplus land, the plaintif laintiff’s father Satpal Sin al Singh had obtained signatures/thu res/thumb impressions of the defenda efendant and his family m ily members on blank and printed pa ted papers, which were later misused isused to fabricate pronote ronotes and receipts. Additional obj al objections were also taken that t that the plaintiff was a m as a minor in 2013, without any ind ny independent source of income, a me, and therefore incapab ncapable of lending such a huge amoun mount. The defendant also pleaded th aded that the suit was not s not maintainable, without cause of use of action, barred by mis-joinder a nder and non-joinder of ne r of necessary parties, and liable to be to be dismissed with special costs und sts under Section 35-A CP A CPC. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, th On gs, the learned trial Court framed t med the following issues issues vide order dated 05.01.2018: PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -3- 1. Whether the plaintiff is ent is entitled for recovery of ₹5,77,50 ,77,500/- along with interest as prayed f Whether the suit is not mainta 2. rayed for? OPP ? OPD maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no l as no locus standi and no cause of acti of action OPD to file the present suit? OPD 4. Relief. 5. In order to prove their case, the pla In o the plaintiff examined PW-1 Lajpat R jpat Rai, deed writer; PW er; PW-2 Lakhvir Singh, attesting esting witness; PW-3 Itbarjeet Sing t Singh, plaintiff; PW-4 A 4 Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwritin writing & Finger Print Expert, besid , besides tendering docum ocuments Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 including luding the pronote, receipt, deed write writer’s register, legal no gal notice, postal receipts and expert r xpert report. The defendant, on the oth the other hand, examined h ined himself as DW1 along with DW th DW2 Gurpyas Singh and DW3 Ash 3 Ashok Kumar (Addl. A ddl. Ahlmad) and produced docume ocumentary evidence Ex.D1 to Ex.D Ex.D28 including copies copies of plaints, pronotes, receipts an ipts and judgments in other civil suits l suits to substantiate his d e his defence. 6. On appreciation of the evidence, the On a ce, the learned trial Court observed th rved that there were mater material contradictions between the w n the witnesses of the plaintiff regardi egarding payment of consi f consideration; that the plaintiff failed failed to plead the purpose of advanci dvancing such a huge amo ge amount; that the defendant’s plea s plea of misuse of signatures obtain obtained during surplus la plus land proceedings appeared credib credible. Consequently, issue No.1 w o.1 was decided against t ainst the plaintiff, whereas issues No.2 es No.2 and 3 were not pressed. The s The suit of the plaintiff aintiff was dismissed with costs v osts vide judgment and decree dat ee dated 11.03.2019 passe passed by the learned trial Court. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff fil Agg tiff filed first appeal. The learned Fi ned First Appellate Court, Court, on re-appreciation of the entir e entire evidence, held that the plaint plaintiff had duly proved roved execution of the pronote and rec nd receipt by examining the deed writ d writer, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -4- attesting witness itness as well as handwriting expert, xpert, and once signatures were prove proved, presumption und n under Section 118 of the Negotiabl otiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for sh for short the Act of 1881) 1881) arose in favour of the plaintiff laintiff. It was observed that the defen defence raised by the de the defendant was contradictory and y and unsupported by cogent evidenc vidence. The appellate C late Court further held that though t h the plaintiff was a student at t nt at the relevant time, hi me, his deposition regarding having i ving income from agricultural land a land and sale of crop cou p could not be disbelieved merely b rely because he had not produced ba ced bank statements. It wa . It was further held that once due ex ue execution was proved, the onus w nus was on the defendant ndant to rebut the presumption, which which he failed to discharge. 8. Accordingly, the appeal was allowe Acc allowed vide judgment and decree dat ree dated 13.02.2024, the , the judgment of the trial Court w ourt was set aside, and the suit of t it of the plaintiff was dec s decreed for recovery of ₹5,77,50 ,77,500/- (₹3,75,000/- as principal a ipal and ₹2,02,500/- as in as interest @ 18% per annum upto 1 upto 18.08.2016). The plaintiff was al was also held entitled to f ed to future interest @ 6% per annum annum on the decretal amount from t from the date of filing of ng of the suit till realization, besides esides costs. Hence, the present Regu Regular Second Appeal b peal by the defendant-appellant. 9. Learned counsel for Lear the appell appellant-defendant submits that that the t impugned judgm judgment and decree dated 13.02.20 .02.2024 passed by the learned Distr District Judge, Sirsa, is , is wholly perverse and contrary t trary to the record, inasmuch as it h as it has wrongly set aside t aside the well-reasoned judgment an ent and decree dated 11.03.2019 pass 9 passed by the learned Ci ned Civil Court, whereby the suit of th ssed. it of the plaintiff had been dismissed. 10. It is urged that the plaintiff institute It is stituted the present suit on the basis o asis of a pronote and rece d receipt dated 19.08.2013 for an am an amount of ₹5,77,500/-, but failed failed to prove the executi xecution of the pronote, the passing o sing of consideration, or the source fro rce from which such a hug h a huge amount was allegedly advanc advanced. The plaintiff was a student tudent at PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -5- the relevant time t time and even his college fees were were being borne by his father, there , thereby demonstrating hi ting his incapacity to advance any such y such loan. He further submits that t s that the plaintiff and his f d his family members have filed as m d as many as six similar suits against t ainst the appellant and his nd his relatives, all founded upon pron n pronotes and receipts of the same da me date, with the same a ame amount and attested by witness itnesses who are none other than t than the plaintiff’s own own relatives. It is argued that su hat such a pattern clearly establish tablishes collusion and fab nd fabrication of documents. It is also is also submitted that during the surpl e surplus land litigation, p tion, pertaining to land measuring 32 k g 32 kanals 16 marlas, the father of t er of the plaintiff, namely amely Satpal Singh, had obtained the ed the signatures and thumb impressio pressions of the appellant a llant and his family members on certa n certain blank and printed papers, whi rs, which were subsequent equently misused, in connivance wit ce with other relatives, to fabricate t icate the impugned prono pronote and receipts. The learned tr ned trial Court had rightly appreciat preciated these circumstan mstances and dismissed the suit, but t t, but the learned Lower Appellate Co ate Court has overlooked s oked such material evidence. It is furth is further contended that the presumpti sumption under Section 11 ion 118 of the Negotiable Instruments ments Act stood effectively rebutted utted by the appellant/def /defendant through cogent eviden evidence. The plaintiff, having neith neither disclosed the pu the purpose of the alleged loan nor e nor established any financial capaci capacity, could not prove t rove the passing of consideration. The n. The witnesses examined in support upport of the pronote are s e are stock witnesses, who had alrea already been disbelieved in connect onnected suits, yet the lea learned 1st Appellate Court has ch has chosen to rely upon them. On t On the strength of the a f the aforesaid submissions, learned arned counsel prays that the impugn mpugned judgment and de and decree dated 13.02.2024 be set a set aside and the judgment and decr d decree dated 11.03.2019 3.2019 of the learned Civil Court, dism rt, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, intiff, be restored. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -6- 11. Per con
Legal Reasoning
er contra, learned counsel for the resp he respondent-plaintiff has supported t orted the impugned judgm judgment and decree dated 13.02.202 2.2024, submitting that the pronote a note and receipt dated 19. 19.08.2013 stood duly proved and ed and the statutory presumption und on under Section 118 of th 8 of the Act of 1881 operates in favou favour of the plaintiff. It is argued th ued that the defence of sig e of signatures on blank papers is with is without substance and unsupported orted by evidence, and th and the mere pendency of similar milar suits by family members cann s cannot discredit the pre he present claim. It is further submi submitted that the trial Court erred erred in dismissing the the suit by ignoring material ev ial evidence, which has rightly be tly been appreciated by th d by the learned Lower Appellate Co ate Court, and hence no interference erence is warranted. 12. Havin Having heard learned counsel for the p or the parties and after going through t ough the record, this Cour s Court finds merit in the submissions issions advanced by learned counsel f unsel for the appellants-de defendants. 13. n a suit on a promissory note whe In a where the case of the defendant as ant as to the circumstance stances under which the promissory no ory note was executed is not accepted cepted, it is open to the def the defendant to prove that the case se ase set up by the plaintiff on the basis basis of the recitals in the in the promissory note, or the case set ase set up in suit notice or in the plaint plaint is not true and reb nd rebut the presumption under Sec er Section 118 of the Act of 1881 1881 by showing a prepon preponderance of probabilities in his f n his favour and against the plaintiff. H intiff. He need not lead ev ead evidence on all conceivable mode modes of consideration for establishi ablishing that the promisso omissory note is not supported by an by any consideration whatsoever. T ver. The words ‘until the c il the contrary is proved’ in Section 11 tion 118 of the Act of 1881 do not me not mean that the defendan fendant must necessarily show that the hat the document is not supported by a d by any form of consider nsideration but the defendant has the as the option to ask the court to consid consider the non-existence istence of consideration so probable th able that a prudent man ought, under t nder the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -7- circumstances of ces of the case, to act upon the supp e supposition that consideration did n did not exist. Though the gh the evidential burden is initially pl ally placed on the defendant by virtue virtue of Section 118, it c it can be rebutted by the defendan fendant by showing a preponderance rance of probabilities that that such consideration as stated in t ted in the pronote, or in the suit notice notice or in the plaint do int does not exist and once the pres e presumption is so rebutted, the sa the said presumption ‘dis n ‘disappears’. For the purpose of reb of rebutting the initial evidential burde l burden, the defendant c ant can rely on direct evidence o nce or circumstantial evidence or e or on presumptions of ns of law or fact. Once such convin onvincing rebuttal evidence is adduc adduced and accepted by ed by the court, having regard to all to all the circumstances of the case a case and the preponderanc derance of probabilities, the evidential dential burden shifts back to the plaint plaintiff who has also the so the legal burden. Thereafter, the pr the presumption under Section 118 do 118 does not again come t ome to the plaintiff's rescue. Once bo nce both parties have adduced evidenc vidence, the court has to c as to consider the same and the burde burden of proof loses all its importanc portance. In the judgment ment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme preme Court in Bharat Barrel & Dru Drum Manufacturing ing Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal relal (1999) 3 SCC 35, the Hon’b Hon’ble Supreme Court h ourt has held as under:- “12 12. Upon consideration of various rious judgments as noted hereinabo above, the position of law which emerge the erges is that once execution of t of the promissory note is admitted, the p prom he presumption under Section 118 118(a) would arise that it is supporte wou orted by a consideration. Such uch a presumption is rebuttable. The defe pres defendant can prove the non-existen istence of a consideration by raising a pro of a probable defence. If the defendant dant is proved to have discharged the initi prov initial onus of proof showing that t hat the existence of consideration was imp exis improbable or doubtful or the sa e same was illegal, the onus would shift to was ft to the plaintiff who will be obliged iged to prove it as a matter of fact and prov and upon its failure to prove wou would disentitle him to the grant of relie dise relief on the basis of the negotiab otiable PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -8- instrument. The burden upon the instr the defendant of proving the no non- existence of the consideration can exis can be either direct or by bringing ing on record the preponderance of pr reco f probabilities by reference to t to the circumstances upon which he relies circ elies. In such an event, the plaintiff intiff is entitled under law to rely upon entit on all the evidence led in the ca e case including that of the plaintiff as w inclu as well. In case, where the defenda fendant fails to discharge the initial onu fails onus of proof by showing the no e non- existence of the consideration, the exis the plaintiff would invariably be he e held entitled to the benefit of presumptio entit tion arising under Section 118(a a) in his favour. The court may not insist his f sist upon the defendant to disprove t ove the existence of consideration by leadin exis ading direct evidence as the existen istence of negative evidence is neither poss of n possible nor contemplated and even even if led, is to be seen with a doubt. The led, . The bare denial of the passing of t of the consideration apparently does n cons s not appear to be any defen efence. Something which is probable has to Som as to be brought on record for getti getting the benefit of shifting the onus of pr the of proving to the plaintiff. To dispro isprove the presumption, the defendant has the has to bring on record such facts a cts and circumstances upon consideration circ tion of which the court may eith either believe that the consideration did no beli id not exist or its non-existence was was so probable that a prudent man woul prob ould, under the circumstances of t of the case, shall act upon the plea that it d case t it did not exist.....” 14. The The plaintiff-respondent had instit instituted the suit on the basis of sis of a pronote and rece d receipt dated 19.08.2013 for a sum o sum of ₹5,77,500/-. Statement of PW of PW-2 Lahvir Singh, o gh, one of the attesting witness of ss of all the alleged six pronotes a otes and receipts that cons at consideration was received by the de the defendant in his presence in front front of deed writer was b r was belied by the said deed writer-La Lajpat Rai, who stepped into witne witness box as PW-1 to 1 to state that no consideration w tion was paid in his presence. Thu . Thus, contradictory tes ry testimonies of aforesaid witnesses tnesses made a dent to the presumpti sumption gained by the pla the plaintiff under the provisions of S s of Section 118 of the Act of 1881 a 881 and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -9- shifted the burde burden on plaintiff, which he failed t failed to discharge, as he failed to pro to prove that he had finan financial capacity to advance such an uch an amount nor proved the passing assing of consideration. A ion. At the relevant time, the plaintiff laintiff was a student whose education ucational expenses were even borne by his father. Furt Furthermore, no source of funds funds or purpose of the all the alleged loan has been disclosed. 15. The record further reveals that as The hat as many as six similar suits we its were instituted by the y the respondent-plaintiff and his fam is family members against the appella appellant and his relatives, ves, all founded on pronotes of ide of identical date and amount, witness itnessed only by close rela se relations. Such a pattern unmistaka istakably raises serious doubts about t about the genuineness of ss of the transactions. Significantly, cantly, the respondent-plaintiff hims himself admitted before efore the learned trial Court through rough the testimony of PW-3 Itbarje Itbarjeet Singh i.e. respon respondent-plaintiff and attesting witn g witness PW-2 Lakhvir Singh in th in their cross-examinatio inations that the defendant and his fam his family members, who are defendan fendants in the other five r five recovery suits, are financially w ially well-off and owners of agricultu ricultural land. The suspici suspicion further increases because the use the respondent-plaintiff has not ev not even mentioned the pu the purpose for which such a large am rge amount was allegedly given. 16. The learned trial court, appreciat The preciating these circumstances, righ , rightly dismissed the su the suit. The presumption under Secti r Section 118(a) of the Act of 1881 w 881 was rebutted by the d y the defendant by raising a probable bable defence. The learned 1st Appella ppellate Court, however, ever, misdirected itself by ignoring th ring these material aspects and reversi reversing the well-reasoned asoned judgment passed by the learned learned trial Court. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, In v ssion, this Court finds that the impugn mpugned judgment and de nd decree dated 13.02.2024 passed by ssed by the learned District Judge, Sir e, Sirsa, is unsustainable inable in law and is hereby set asid t aside. Resultantly, the judgment a ent and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-2009-2024 2024 (O&M) -10- decree dated 11.0 ed 11.03.2019 passed by the learned rned trial Court dismissing the suit of t uit of the plaintiff stands re ands restored. 18. Accordingly, the regular second app Acc appeal is allowed. Decree sheet sh eet shall be prepared acco d accordingly. There shall be no order order as to costs. 19. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, Misc
Decision
if any, also stand disposed of AMARINDER SINGH GREWA (AM JUDGE EWAL) , 2025 August 20, 2025 Pankaj* ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.02 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh