Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 Date of decision: 27.08.2009 1. Jitender Singh s/o Lakha Singh s/o Naranjan Singh r/o Akali Kaur Singh Colony, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, District Patiala. 2. Ranjit Singh s/o Lakha Singh s/o Naranjan Singh r/o Akali Kaur Singh Colony, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, District Patiala. 3. Ajit Kaur w/o Sukhminder Singh d/o Lakha Singh s/o Naranjan Singh r/o H.No.266, Phase XI, Mohali, District Ropar. 4. Hardeep Kaur w/o Rajinder Singh d/o Lakha Singh s/o Naranjan Singh r/o VPO Raipur Khurd, Chandigarh,(UT). ..... Appellants. Versus Blood Diseases Hospital Society, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh through its Chairman Sh. K.N. Dubey. ..... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:-Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for the appellants. Service of the respondent dispensed with, it being ex-parte, in the Courts below. Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2005, rendered by Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 2 the Court of District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which it partly accepted the appeal and partly dismissed the same, against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh. 2. Lakha Singh,plaintiff, (now deceased) claimed that he was having business and personal dealings at Chandigarh. The defendant society requested the plaintiff to advance loan of Rs.55,000/-. It was stated that, on the request of the defendant, he paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- as loan, to the defendant society. Rs.41,000/- and Rs.24,000/- were also advanced to the defendant society, by the plaintiff on its request. However, the defendant society failed to return the amount, in question, to the plaintiff. It was further stated that in the year 1993, the defendant society issued four post dated cheques, amounting to Rs.30,000/- each, and on presentation, the same were returned dishonoured, due to lack of funds, in the account of the society. Thereafter, the defendant society was asked to repay the loan amount, but to no avail. Left with no alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed. 3. The defendant-respondent was duly served, but none appeared on its behalf to contest the suit. It was proceeded against ex-parte. Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 3 4. The plaintiff led evidence, in support of his case. The trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the plaintiff, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, in toto, holding that it was barred by time. 5. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001, passed by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Court, which vide its judgment and decree dated 05.09.2005, partly accepted the same, as referred to above. 6. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the appellants, legal representatives of Lakha Singh, (deceased). 7. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the trial Court, was wrong, in dismissing the suit. He further submitted that the first Appellate court also fell into a grave error, in partly dismissing the suit. He further submitted that K.N. Dubey, in the capacity of the Chairman of the defendant society, swore an affidavit, Ex.P8, dated 30.09.1993, Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 4 wherein he confirmed that a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- was obtained by the society. He further submitted that four cheques dated 10.11.1993, 18.01.1994, 10.03.1994 and 10.05.1994 of Rs.30,000/- each were also issued by him. He further submitted that since there was unqualified acknowledgment of debt by the Chairman of the defendant society, the suit was within limitation. It was further submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court, dismissing the suit partly, were liable to be set aside, being illegal. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at, by the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 5 grossly erroneous as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The first Appellate court was right in coming to the conclusion, that on the basis of cheque dated 10.11.1993, which was presented on 11.11.1993 and was dishonoured, the plaintiff was entitled to the recovery of the amount with interest as the suit in respect of the same was filed on 07.11.1996, i.e. within the period of limitation of three years. The first Appellate Court was also right in coming to the conclusion that though through affidavit Ex.P8, dated 30.09.1993, Mr. K.N. Dubey, acknowledged the debt of Rs.1,20,000/- but the suit was not filed within the period of limitation of three years, but was filed on 07.11.1996 and, as such, no help could be drawn, on the basis of such acknowledgment. The first Appellate court was also right in coming to the conclusion that since the remaining three cheques dated 18.01.1994, 10.03.1994 and 10.05.1994 of Rs.30,000/- each were not presented for encashment and dishonoured, no liability on the basis thereof, could be fastened Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 6 upon the defendant-society. Section 64 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, lays down that promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques be presented for payment to the maker, acceptor or drawee thereof respectively, by or on behalf of the holder. In default of such presentment, the other parties, were not liable thereon, to such holder. So the first Appellate Court was right in holding that the claim with regard to cheque, Ex.P-7 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- was within the period of limitation, whereas the claim of Rs.90,000/- with regard to the remaining cheques, on the basis of acknowledgment dated 30.09.1993, Ex.P8 was barred by time, as the suit was filed on 07.11.1996 i.e. beyond the period of limitation. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in Syndicate Bank v. P. Veerana & Ors., 2003(2) SCC 15. However, the same is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case, the same being distinguishable from the facts of the aforesaid case. The first Appellate Court was, thus, right in partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, Regular Second Appeal No. 1167 of 2006 7 warranting the interference of this Court. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 10. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) 27.08.2009, Judge dinesh