RSA No.524 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 524 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:November 18, 2009 Ved Parkash ...........Appellant Versus Jaili Ram ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.V.S.Punia, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Jaili Ram filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/-. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narwana vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was allowed by the District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Ved Parkash. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment, read as under:- “2. Relevant facts of the case of the plaintiff are given on the next page: The defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,02,500/- from the plaintiff on 25.3.1997. Interest @ 1.50% per month was agreed upon. A pronote and receipt thereof were executed by the RSA No.524 of 2008 (O&M) 2 defendant on the same day wherein this transaction of borrowing was duly recorded. The pronote and receipt were scribed by Jai Bhagwan Garg and were witnessed by Krishan Kumar of Narwana. The defendant neither paid the principal amount nor had discharged his liability towards payment of interest. The plaintiff had issued registered notice to the defendant, but to no effect. Consequently, litigation started. 3.A tough contest was made to the suit. A case of total denial was set up. Claiming that there are material alterations in the pronote and receipt and further that scribe as also witnesses are closely related with the plaintiff, pronote and receipt are claimed to be forged and fictitious documents. 4.Controverting the allegations of the plaintiff, it was interalia pleaded that the plaintiff is doing the business of commission agency at Narwana under the name and style of M/s Jaili Ram Pardeep Kumar. Pardeep Kumar his son is a partner in the said firm. The defendant used to sell his agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff. The plaintiff used to obtain thumb impressions of the defendant on blank papers, Bahi and blank forms. The plaintiff firm was to pay for the crops sold by the defendant. When the defendant demanded the money, the suit was filed by the plaintiff to harass the defendant. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. 6.In replication, earlier assertions made in the plaint were reiterated. Denying the allegations of the defendant, it was claimed that a false and concocted story had been interwoven by RSA No.524 of 2008 (O&M) 3 the defendant just to avoid demand of loan amount borrowed by him. Prayer for decree of the suit was made”. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 8.1.2001:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,50,000/- from the defendant as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the documents placed on file by the plaintiff are fictitious and are without consideration as alleged?OPD 3.Whether the defendant was minor at the time of execution of the pronote and the receipt as alleged?OPD 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is nullity and is liable to be dismissed as alleged?OPD 5. Relief.” The following additional issues were also framed vide order dated 23.2.2004:- 4A) Whether there are material addition and alteration in the pronote and receipt, if so, its effect?OPD 4B) Whether suit is bad for want of money lending licence?OPD After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 25.3.1997. The appellant-defendant had simply denied the execution of the pronote and receipt and had taken the plea that it was a result of fraud and forgery. However, the defendant failed to establish that the pronote and receipt in question were the result of fraud and forgery. Plaintiff, in order to prove his case, appeared in the witness box as PW1 and RSA No.524 of 2008 (O&M) 4 deposed as per the contents of the plaint. Plaintiff also examined Jai Bhagwan,PW2, who was scribe of pronote and receipt in question. PW3 Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert gave his opinion that the thumb impressions on the pronote matched with the thumb impressions of the appellant-defendant. However, the thumb impressions of the respondent were opined to be unsuitable for comparison. Thus, the plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt. The defendant-appellant, on the other hand, has failed to establish that the pronote and receipt were not thumb marked by him. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his argument has submitted that the pronote and receipt in question suffered from material alteration but he ,however, failed to point out as to how the pronote and receipt had been materially altered. Merely because the witness while signing the receipt had used different pen and ink does not make the the document materially altered. The fact remains that the pronote and receipt have been thumb marked by the appellant-defendant and the defendant had failed to establish the fraud alleged to have been committed on him at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt. Learned counsel also failed to establish by pointing any evidence on record to the effect that the plaintiff was a money lender and was doing the said business without the requisite licence. The appellant-defendant had failed to establish that the plaintiff was advancing money on interest in regular course of his business. Some instances of advancement of loan by the plaintiff itself cannot be sufficient to hold that the plaintiff was doing the business of money lender. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second RSA No.524 of 2008 (O&M) 5 appeal which would warrant interference by this Court Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 18, 2009 arya