Harbans Singh v. Nachhattar Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH ....Respondent Present: Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.10921-22-C of 2012 For the reasons stated in the applications, which are supported by affidavits, this Court finds that the reasons are bonafide and sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly both the applications are allowed. Delay of 346 days in re-filing as well as 22 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.10923-C of 2011 Instant application under Section 149 CPC has been moved for seeking six months time to make the deficiency of court fee as good. Allowed as prayed for. RSA No.3827 of 2011 RSA No.3827 of 2011(O&M) #2# Defendant-appellant has filed the present regular second appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated

23.12.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda whereby an appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phul decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No.5 of 4.1.2005 for recovery of Rs.1,06,400/- (Rs.70,000/- Principal plus Rs.36,400/- Interest) against the defendant-appellant on the basis of pronote. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. An appeal was preferred against the abovesaid judgment and decree but the same was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court, hence the present appeal under Section 100 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the courts below have gravely erred while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent in view of the fact that execution of pronote and its receipts have not at all been proved according to law. It is further argued that the defendant-appellant had never borrowed any money from the plaintiff-respondent and as such the judgments and decree passed by both the courts are liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. RSA No.3827 of 2011(O&M) #3# It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant- appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- on an agreed rate of interest i.e 2% per month on the basis of pronote dated 15.10.2002 and receipt. The said borrowed amount was to be returned by the defendant-appellant on demand but he failed to repay the same, as neither any interest nor any principal amount was returned by the defendant-appellant resulting into filing of the present suit. On the contrary, the defendant-appellant opposed the civil suit by alleging that pronote and receipt are false and fabricated and do not bear his signature as no amount was ever borrowed from the plaintiff-respondent. It was alleged that the defendant and his father had been selling their agriculture produce with the Commission Agent, namely, Vijay Kumar @ Bhima, Mohan Kumar @ Mahna sons of Jagan Nath R/o Bhagta Bhai Ka upto Hari 2003 and both the abovesaid persons used to obtain thumb impressions and signatures on blank papers for preparing forged and fabricated pronote in connivance with each other and used to file civil suits. Similarly, the plaintiff and his brother Balbir Singh and Hardial Singh in connivance with marginal witness Nahar Singh also filed civil suit against the farmers/sellers. Plaintiff Nachhattar Singh appeared as PW1, Mohan Kumar attesting witness/Scribe appeared as PW2. Pronote is exhibited as Ex.P.1 and receipt is exhibited as Ex.P.2. Execution of pronote was reiterated in the version of PW1 and the same was corroborated by PW2 that the defendant-appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- @ 2% per RSA No.3827 of 2011(O&M) #4# month interest agreed by the defendant-appellant. It is also proved that the loan amount was agreed to be returned on demand, however, the defendant-appellant has failed to return the same. Defendant-appellant himself appeared as DW1 and he has conceded that he has no enmity with Gurmail Singh-attesting witness of the receipt. DW2-V.P. Bhatnagar in his cross examination deposed that writing of pronote (Ex.P.1) and its receipt (Ex.P.2) as well as signature of the defendant-appellant were written with the same ink. DW2 further admitted that the defendant-appellant did not ask to compare his signature on the pronote and receipt with the standard signatures. He has further admitted that he did not see specimen handwriting of the defendant for the purpose of comparison. DW2 has also admitted that the signatures of the defendant-appellant are in continuity on the revenue stamp affixed on the pronote. PW3-Anil Kumar Gupta has also supported the case of the plaintiff-respondent by way of giving his opinion and the report of comparison (Ex.P.3/1) that the disputed signatures on the pronote as well as receipt are similar to standard signatures of the defendant-appellant. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that the defendant- appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- and the execution of pronote (Ex.P.1) as well as its receipt (Ex.P.2) have been duly proved by the plaintiff-respondent. The story putforth by the defendant- appellant that the pronote and its receipts are forged and fabricated in connivance with Mohan Kumar and Vijay Kumar does not inspire RSA No.3827 of 2011(O&M) #5# confidence and the same has rightly been discarded by both the courts below. The law is well settled that if a party is alleging that the exhibited document is forged and fabricated, then a heavy onus lies upon that party to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. But in the present case, there is no evidence at all to prove that the pronote and receipts are forged and fabricated much less to say any cogent evidence. Learned trial Court had an occasion to peruse the contents of pronote as well as its receipts and came to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant had put his signatures on all the five stamps affixed on pronote and receipts. There is no explanation as to how his signatures have come on all the papers. Even, DW2-V.P. Bhatnagar instead of supporting the case of defendant-appellant has fully supported the case of the plaintiff-respondent. Even otherwise, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed for an amount of Rs.70,000/- as Principal along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of execution of pronote i.e 15.10.2002 and the total amount comes to Rs.79,100/-. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is trying to re- argue the matter only on factual aspect of the case in the present appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal for consideration Dismissed. RSA No.3827 of 2011(O&M) #6# February 27,2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE