Regular Second Appeal No.3473 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3473 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-20.9.2011 Mukhtiar Singh ...Appellant Versus Kulwant Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rohit Verma, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not ? 2. The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Kulwant Singh son of Jagtar Singh respondent-plaintiff (for short “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of recovery of ` 88000/- (principal ` 65,000/- plus interest ` 23,000/-) against Mukhtiar Singh son of Bahal Singh appellant-defendant (for brevity “the defendant”), inter-alia pleading that the defendant had borrowed a sum of ` 65,000/- and duly executed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt dated 30.5.2000 (Ex.P2) with a promise to return the same to him on demand. The pronote and receipt were scribed by Vijay Kumar, Deed Writer (PW1) and attested by Gurcharan Rai (PW2). According to the plaintiff that the defendant did not repay the amount alongwith interest inspite of repeated requests. It necessitated him Regular Second Appeal No.3473 of 2009 (O&M) -2- (plaintiff) to file the suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, he filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery against the defendant in the manner indicated hereinbefore. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, limitation, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. The case set up by the defendant, in brief in so far as relevant, was that neither he had borrowed the amount nor executed any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) were claimed to be forged & fabricated documents and without consideration. The defendant has denied all remaining allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands. 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 26.7.2006. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.2008. 8. The appellant-defendant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees and preferred the instant regular second appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this context. 10. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since it stands proved on record that the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2) executed by the defendant Regular Second Appeal No.3473 of 2009 (O&M) -3- in favour of the plaintiff were forged, fabricated documents and without consideration, so, the Courts below committed a mistake in decreeing his suit, sans merit. 11. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff based his claim for recovery of the indicated amount on the basis of pronote and receipt, scribed by Vijay Kumar Deed Writer (PW1). He has filed his affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) and maintained, on oath, that he scribed the pronote and receipt at the instance of Mukhtiar Singh (defendant), who signed the same in token of their correctness in his presence. PW2 Gurcharan Rai stated that an amount of ` 65000/- was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence and the defendant executed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2), which bear his signatures. The plaintiff has proved his case, while appearing as PW3, corroborated the payment of loan of ` 65000/- to the defendant and execution of pronote and receipt in this respect. So much so, the defendant, in his cross-examination, has admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. In this manner, the plaintiff has duly proved the execution of pronote, receipt and passing of the consideration of the indicated amount. The mere denial by the defendant is not sufficient in this relevant connection. The story put forth by him that the pronote and receipt were executed at the instance of Commission Agent Satpal, has already been disbelieved. That means, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire material on record, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff in this connection. 12. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 30.8.2008, which, in substance, is (para 14) as under:- “14. The defendant has denied the execution and receipt of Rs.65000/- and also mentioned in the written statement as well as in his affidavit that he does not know the plaintiff and he has no concern with the same, but did not state any fact about the commission agent Satpal in the affidavit as well as in the written statement. So, the entire arguments, advanced by ld.counsel for appellant, about the involvement of the commission agent Satpal are without Regular Second Appeal No.3473 of 2009 (O&M) -4- pleadings and without evidence. In the cross examination, defendant Mukhtiar Singh has admitted his signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. It has come in the cross- examination of defendant Mukhtiar Singh that he has no enmity with Vijay Kumar and Gurcharan Rai and similarly, other witness DW1 Raslal Singh has stated that Mukhtiar Singh has no enmity with plaintiff. It has come in the cross examination of Kulwant Singh that Mukhtiar Singh is married at Village Assal Uttarh, which is a village of plaintiff. This is a common practice in the villages that villagers usually knows to the person, who is married in their village. Moreover, Mukhtiar Singh defendant did not lead any evidence about the reason as to why this suit is filed by plaintiff against defendant. Plaintiff has led positive evidence to prove the fact that pronote and receipt were signed by defendant Mukhtiar Singh after taking loan of Rs.65000/- and these signatures are admitted by defendant in the cross examination. So, pronote and receipt are not forged and fabricated documents.” 13. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 14. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have 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, they have recorded the above mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, 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, in this regard. 15. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant to assail the findings in the impugned judgments and decrees. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, in this relevant direction, have Regular Second Appeal No.3473 of 2009 (O&M) -5- already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 16. Sequelly, 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, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh's case (supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. 18. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 20.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No