R.S.A.No. 2340 of 2008(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2340 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:August 18, 2009 Satpal ---Appellant versus Firm Indru Mal Jaili Ram ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. S.N.Gaur,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. *** SABINA J. Plaintiff –Firm Indru Mal Jaili Ram had filed a suit for recovery of Rs 2,85,000/-. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Narwana, vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.2007 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was partly accepted and interest @ 6% per annum instead of 8% was allowed by District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, R.S.A.No. 2340 of 2008(O&M) {2} in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “2. Facts of the case of the plaintiff so far as these are relevant for decision of this appeal, are as under:- Sole proprietorship plaintiff firm is engaged in commission agency business in Anaj Mandi, Narwana; Jaili Ram is the sole proprietor. On 31.8.2000, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- in cash from the plaintiff firm. A writing was scribed by Megh Raj in the Bahi of the plaintiff and was explained to the defendant. After understanding the contents of the same, the defendant, after receiving the stated cash amount, had appended his thumb impressions on the revenue stamps. The defendant did not repay the amount borrowed by him. Legal notice dated 27.5.2003 was served upon him. He neither sent any reply nor adjusted the amount. Despite repeated requests, the defendant did not come forward to adjust the amount and rather refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff. Consequently, suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming customary interest @ 1½ % per month. 3. The defendant has contested the suit. Setting up a case of total denial, it was claimed that the defendant is an illiterate person. Controverting the allegations of the plaintiff, it was inter alia pleaded that the scribe is own man of the plaintiff. It was claimed that if the plaintiff was ready to pay obeisance in baba Khaknath Temple, the defendant was ready to pay to the plaintiff. Asserting that when no borrowing was made, it is R.S.A.No. 2340 of 2008(O&M) {3} claimed that there is no question of payment with interest. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,85,000/- as prayed for? OPP (2)Whether the suit is bad for want of money lending licence? OPD (3)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPP (4)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on the entry in the Bahi( ledger book ) (Ex. P-1). Defendant denied that he had borrowed any money from the plaintiff. In order to prove his case, plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and also examined Megh Raj who had scribed the entry Ex. P-1. Plaintiff further examined PW-3-Dr. Inderjit Singh, Hand writing and Finger Print Expert, who examined the questioned thumb impression of the defendant on Ex. P-1 with his standard thumb impression and gave his opinion that the questioned thumb impression on Ex P-1 matched with the standard thumb impression of the defendant. Defendant, however, has failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff with regard to the advancement of loan amount to plaintiff vide Ex. P-1. Issue No. 3 was framed as to whether the suit was bad for want of money lending licence. The said issued was not pressed by the counsel for the R.S.A.No. 2340 of 2008(O&M) {4} defendant. Both the courts below after examining the evidence led by the parties had given a finding of fact that the amount in question was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff and entry Ex. P-1 was duly executed in this regard cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 18, 2009 PARAMJIT