Sunil Kumar v. Narinderjit Singh

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ****

#1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 2231-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, the application is allowed subject to all just exceptiones. The applicant is permitted to prosecute this appeal as an indigent person. RSA No. 777 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the recovery suit filed by the respondent. The main plea of the appellant that the said transaction was a result of fraud was not believed by the Courts below. The following questions have been proposed:- RSA No. 777 of 2009 2 a) Whether the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse in nature? b) Whether the learned Courts below have misread and misconstrued the evidence on the file and have failed to consider the material evidence on the file and thus have committed serious illegality?? c ) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the pronote and receipt can be said to be duly executed as per law? d) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is a money lender? e) Whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent could have been decreed especially when Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Moneylender's Act, 1938 bars such a suit for recovery by a moneylender? f) Whether the plaintiff-respondent has complied with the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, 1930? g) Whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to any interest despite of the fact that he has not complied with the provisions of Section 3 of the Punjab Regulation of Accounts Act, 1930? h) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? i) Whether the learned Courts below have framed the proper issues? Questions No.(a), (b) and (c) are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings on the aforesaid questions are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. The said questions are thus decided against the appellant. None of the pleas regarding questions No. (d) , ( e) and (h) were ever raised. As regards question No. (i), no such plea was raised RSA No. 777 of 2009 3 before the learned Lower Appellate Court. With regard to questions No. (f) and ( g ) the learned trial court has rightly considered these questions under issues No. 3 and 4 and have decreed the suit only with interest of 9% from the date of execution of pronote and receipt till the date of filing of the suit and with future interest at the rate of 6%. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. November 23, 2009 sunita (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE