R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 21, 2009 Naib Singh ---Appellant versus Mukhtiar Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Tribhuwan Singla,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Mukhtiar Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,68,560/-. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Succinctly, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that initially, plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh filed a suit for the R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) {2} recovery of Rs. 3,68,560/-. It is averred in the plaint that on 3.12.2002, defendant Naib Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,71,000/- from the plaintiff and agr4eed to pay interest @ 2% per month to the plaintiff and also agreed to return the borrowed amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff. In consideration of the aforesaid borrowing the defendant had also executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence of the attesting witnesses and after admitting the contents thereof, he signed the pronote and receipt. However, despite the demand having been raised by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to make the payment of Rs. 2,71,000/- as principal amount as well as interest of Rs. 97,560/-. as such, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,68,560/-. 3. In pursuance of the notice issued by the court, the defendant made appearance and filed the written statement. In the written statement, the defendant raised legal objection thereby claiming the suit to have been filed by the plaintiff, in connivance with his nephew Dalwinder Singh and his brother- in-law Darshan Singh, on the basis of the pronote and receipt dated 3.12.2002,. which is a forged and fabricated document. Also, it is averred that the plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh had already filed another civil suit against the defendant through Sukhvinder Singh son of Darshan Singh on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 30.11.2002. It has been stated by the defendant that the pronote and receipt are without consideration and it does not bear the signatures of the defendant. Further, it R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) {3} has been averred that the defendant in the year 1998 had started the business of Dhaba along with one Balwinder Singh under the name and style of ' Jagtar Dhaba' at Bhikhi to the extent of ½ share each. However, after three months of the initiation of the Dhaba business, there arose dispute between both of them and they parted ways. Balwinder Singh, thereafter, had joined hands with Darshan Singh, brother-in-law of the plaintiff regarding the aforesaid Dhaba. The defendant had also got executed the sale deed qua the land over which the Dhaba was constructed in favour of Darshan Singh, vide sale deed bearing No. 2415 dated 10.7.1998. Thereafter, the defendant did not owe any amount towards Darshan Singh and his family members. As such, it is stated that the pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents, having been prepared by the plaintiff and his son Sukhvinder Singh and the same are without consideration. Further, it is averred that the name of the defendant is Nayab Singh and not Naib Singh. Also, further, it is averred that the promote and receipt dated 3.12.2002 are forged and fabricated documents and there are material alteration in the pronote and receipt in question. The plaintiff has not locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiff is a money lender. The pronote and receipt are not properly stamped and are inadmissible. The plaintiff has filed the present suit only to cause harassment to the defendant. As such, the defendant is entitled to payment of costs. On merits, the borrowing of amount of Rs. 2,71,000/- R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) {4} has been denied in toto. As such, execution of the pronote and receipt has been denied, as there was no requirement on the part of the defendant to borrow such a huge amount from the plaintiff. Rather, the pronote and receipt are claimed to be forged and fabricated document prepared by the plaintiff, in connivance with his nephew Dalwinder Singh and his brother- in-law Darshan Singh. The plaintiff has field the present suit to usurp the property of the defendant.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,71,000/- in cash, from the plaintiff, on 3.12.2002 and executed pronote and receipt to the said effect in favour of the plaintiff? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes at what rate? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for? OPP (4)Whether the promote and receipt dated 3.12.2002 are forged and fabricated documents and are of without any consideration? OPD (5)Whether the pronote and receipt dated 3.12.2002 are not properly stamped and cancelled and are inadmissible in evidence? OPD (6)Whether the pronote and receipt dated 3.12.2002 are bearing material alterations?OPD R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) {5} (7)Whether the plaintiff is a money lender? OPD (8)Whether the defendant is entitled for special costs of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 35-A of CPC? OPD (9)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 3.12.2002 (Ex. P-1 and P-2 respectively). In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined Dalwinder Singh PW-1, scribe of the pronote and receipt and Dr. Inderjit Singh, Hand writing and Finger Print Expert. The expert after examining the questioned signatures on the pronote and receipt with the standard signatures of the defendant gave his opinion that the same were of the defendant. Defendant, on the other hand, had examined DW-1, Navdeep Gupta, Hand writing and Finger Print Expert, who gave his opinion that the pronotes and receipts dated 30.11.2002 and 3.12.2002 had been written at the same time. The said witness was examined by the defendant to substantiate his plea that the pronote and receipt were in fact, not executed on 3.12.2002 as alleged by the plaintiff and the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. However, the opinion of the Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert fails to rebut the testimony of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff with regard to the due execution of the pronote and receipt. Moreover, the pronote and receipt dated 30.11.2002 were not proved by the defendant. A perusal of the pronote and receipt (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that the same are duly signed by the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, had failed to rebut the R.S.A.No. 3082 of 2009(O&M) {6} evidence led by the plaintiff to the effect that the pronote and receipt were duly signed by the defendant. In these circumstances, both the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 21, 2009 PARAMJIT