Baljit Singh v. Ashok Kumar

Mr.H.S.Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that Ashok Kumar son of Satpal respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of recovery against Baljit Singh son of Hardev Singh appellant-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendant”), inter- alia, pleading that on 1.11.1998, the defendant took a cash loan of Rs.1,30,000/- on interest from him (plaintiff) and had executed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) in the presence of marginal witnesses. He agreed to repay the amount of loan with interest on demand. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant refused to repay the borrowed amount with interest despite repeated requests, which necessitated him to file the present suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of recovery of the indicated amount against the defendant in the manner detailed here-in-above.

The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement denying the borrowing of Rs.1,30,000/- and execution of pronote and receipt by him in favour of the plaintiff. The pronote and receipt were stated to be forged and fabricated documents prepared by the plaintiff, in connivance with the marginal witnesses. The case of the defendant further proceeds that he used to sell his agricultural produce/crops through the commission agency (shop) of the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No.3368 of 2010 2 He did not pay the price of the produce. During the course of dealing, the plaintiff was stated to have obtained his signatures on blank pronote and receipt on some pretext. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case.

The parties to the litigation, led oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to prove their respective pleaded cases.

Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 1.10.2008.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24.11.2009. He still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. That is how, I am seized of the matter.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal.

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the plaintiff failed to prove the execution of pronote (Ex.P1), receipt (Ex.P2), which are result of fraud and passing of the consideration amount, so, the Courts below erred in decreeing his suit, outrightly deserves to be rejected.

As is evident from the record that the plaintiff has claimed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- on 1.11.1998 and executed the pronote Regular Second Appeal No.3368 of 2010 3 (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) in his favour in the presence of marginal witnesses Harcharan Singh and Harbans Lal. The defendant has denied the execution of the indicated documents. The plaintiff, in order to prove the execution of pronote and receipt and payment of borrowed amount, examined PW1 Harbans Lal, who has, inter-alia, maintained on oath, that the defendant has taken an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and had executed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) in favour of the plaintiff, which were scribed by PW2 Devinder Pal. The contents of the pronote were read over and explained and the defendant had signed it in token of its correctness after receipt of Rs.1,30,000/-. The statement of PW2 Devinder Pal is also to that effect. PW4 Navdeep Gupta handwriting and finger prints expert, has proved that the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) bear the signatures of the defendant. Thus, it would be seen that the execution of pronote, receipt and passing of the consideration amount stands duly proved.

The mere fact that the defendant used to sell his agricultural produce through the commission agency (shop) of the plaintiff, ipso facto is not sufficient to prove that the plaintiff has obtained the signatures of the defendant on blank pronote and receipt or that the same were the result of fraud and fabrication, as urged on behalf of the appellant-defendant, particularly when as discussed here-in- above, the execution of pronote (Ex.P1), receipt (Ex.P2) and passing of the consideration amount stands duly established by cogent evidence. The plea of fraud has to be pleaded and proved by producing cogent evidence like a criminal case. The defendant has miserably failed to specifically plead and prove the particular/incident of fraud. In this manner, to me, the Courts below have rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiff and negatived the plea of fraud of the defendant in this respect.

No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant to assail the findings of the Courts below. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged Regular Second Appeal No.3368 of 2010 4 on his behalf, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below.

Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the well-articulated and well-reasoned concurrent findings of fact that the execution of pronote (Ex.P1), receipt (Ex.P2) and passing of the consideration amount stands duly proved on record. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard.

Meaning thereby, the entire matter revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, much less substantial, is involved in the second appeal, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant.