R.S.A. No. 555 of 1993 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 555 of 1993 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2009 Prem Raj ....appellant versus Joginder Pal ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, and Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Amarjeet Markan, Advocate, and Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.1.1993 passed by the learned Courts below, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs.6,109/- with interest @ Rs.1% per month. The case set up by the plaintiff/appellant was that a sum of Rs.4,500/- was borrowed by the defendant/respondent against pronote and receipt executed on 16.2.1985. The loan amount was to carry interest @ 1% per month. However, the defendant/respondent failed to pay interest or principal amount. It was also the case up by the plaintiff/appellant that a registered notice was issued, but the defendant R.S.A. No. 555 of 1993 (O&M) -2- failed to reply to the said notice or pay the money. On notice, the defendant/respondent filed written statement by raising a preliminary objection that the pronote and receipt in question were forged and fabricated documents. On merits, the averments made in plaint were denined and it was pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant wanted the defendant/respondent to appear as witness in another case filed by him, but on account of his refusal, the relations between the plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent got strained in the year 1984. It was to take revenge that the plaintiff forged the pronote by tracing the signatures of the defendant, and filed the present suit on the basis of the said forged pronote. It was further the case set up that in a case titled Prem Raj Vs. Ram Dhan, the plaintiff had summoned Jagan Nath, but he also refused to give false evidence, and now a notice has also been served upon him by the plaintiff by preparing false documents. It was further the case of the defendant/respondent that the plaintiff/appellant was in habit of involving innocent people in false cases. It was, thus, prayed that the suit be dismissed. In the replication filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and that of written statement were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: - "1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,500/- from the plaintiff and he executed the pronote and receipt on that date in favour of the plaintiff on receiving the consideration amount? OPD R.S.A. No. 555 of 1993 (O&M) -3- 2. Whether the defendant agreed to pay interest @ Rs. 1% per month? If so to what effect? OPP 3. Whether the pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents? OPD 4. Relief." On issue No. 3, in order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Sh. V.B. Bhatnagar, handwriting expert, as PW-3 to prove that the pronote and receipt were signed by the defendant/respondent. To controvert the evidence of PW-3, the defendant/respondent examined Sh. Atul Kumar Singla, handwriting expert. While Sh. V.B. Bhatnagar supported the case set up by the plaintiff/appellant, Sh. Atul Kumar Singla found the signatures on the pronote and receipt to be forged. The learned trial Court in view of the other evidence on record was pleased to hold that Sh. V.B. Bhatnagar PW-3 had given a wrong report on asking of the plaintiff/appellant, and report submitted by him was not reliable. The learned trial Court found that Sh. Atul Kumar Singla, handwriting expert, produced by defendant/respondent had given an accurate report, wherein it was opined that the signatures on pronote and receipt did not tally with the specimen signatures. Thus, the learned trial Court on issue No. 3 was pleased to hold that the pronote as well as receipt were forged and fabricated documents. The finding on issue No. 3 was, thus, answered in favour of the defendant/respondent. In view of the finding on issue No. 3, issues No. 1 and 2 were decided against the plaintiff, and consequently, the suit was ordered to be dismissed. R.S.A. No. 555 of 1993 (O&M) -4- The plaintiff/appellant challenged the judgment and decree by way of appeal. The learned lower appellate Court was pleased to affirm the findings of the learned trial Court, and dismissed the appeal. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, raised the following substantial questions of law: - "1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of evidence on record, thus, perverse? 2. Whether the learned lower appellate Court committed patent error in not deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, while disposing of appeal?" In support of the first substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant cotended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is perverse and liable to be set aside, as the learned Courts below have failed to notice that the evidence of DW-2 Sh. Atul Kumar Singla, which has been believed, is contrary to the case set up by the defendant/respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that in the written statement plea taken by the defendant/respondent was that the pronote and receipt are outcome of traced forgery whereas Sh. Atul Kumar Singla while holding the pronote and receipt to be forged and fabricated documents did not record any finding that the documents were prepared by way of traced forgery. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have R.S.A. No. 555 of 1993 (O&M) -5- rightly held that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents. There was no need for Sh. Atul Kumar Singla to have opined the mode used for forging the documents. Once the signatures on pronote and receipt did not tally with the signatures of defendant/respondent, the expert was right in forming an opinion about documents being forged. Thus, the first substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff/appellant. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned lower appellate Court committed a patent error in not deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is also misconceived, as there was nothing on record to show as to whether any application was moved by the plaintiff/appellant before the learned lower appellate Court or pressed. Once, no such application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved on record of the case, it cannot be said that there is any error in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below. The learned Courts below have rightly recorded a concurrent finding on appreciation of evidence on record, which does not call for any interference by this Court. The substantial questions of law raised are, thus, answered against the plaintiff/appellant and in favour of the defendant/respondent. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 16, 2009 reena/R.S.