RSA No.813 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.813 of 2008 Date of Decision:25.03.2009 Jasvir Singh ....appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.N.S.Thind,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for recovery of the plaintiff- respondent on the basis of pronote and receipt has been decreed and counter claim of the appellant/defendant has been dismissed. Case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint was that Jasvir Singh, the appellant, had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lacs from the plaintiff on 29.09.1999 and had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in this regard. Defendant had agreed to repay the loan amount along with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Defendant had however, failed to repay the said amount on demand. Hence, suit for recovery was filed. Defendant in his written statement and counter claim for rendition of account, took up various legal objections. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged pronote and receipt were taken as security. The same were blank and had been given at the time when defendant started RSA No.813 of 2008 2 selling his produce with the plaintiff and he had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- to pay the same to commission agent Manjit Singh. The said amount was repaid as defendant had taken the loan by giving his ornaments to Gurdev Singh, goldsmith to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. Defendant had sold his produce on several occasions but the accounts were not rendered by the plaintiff. The remaining material averments of the plaint were controverted and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. In the counter-claim, the appellant sought the details of his crop sold with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had been selling his crop since 1991-92 and he was entitled to recover huge sum of Rs.7,50,000/- qua which the plaintiff had issued him a slip. Hence, counter-claim was sought. In the replication to the written statement and reply to the counter-claim the averments raised in the written statement were controverted and those of the plaint were reiterated. With regard to the counter-claim, the plaintiff denied as to defendant selling his crop through Manjit Singh. It was also denied that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- in 1991-92 and his having sold the crop. Material averments of the remaining paras were controverted and it was prayed that counter- claim be dismissed. Vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 of the trial Court the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and counter-claim filed by the defendant was dismissed. Aggrieved from the same, defendant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Bathinda, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.08.2007. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued RSA No.813 of 2008 3 that there was enough evidence on the record in the shape of Ex.D-1 from which it has been established on record that the plaintiff-respondent was to pay a huge amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the appellant. Elaborating his argument further, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the writing Ex.D-1 has been proved to be of the plaintiff-respondent by the Handwriting Expert and there is neither any rebuttal to the evidence Ex.D-1 nor any explanation has been submitted by the plaintiff-respondent in this regard. However, the aforesaid evidence of the defendant-respondent has been ignored by the Courts below, illegally. Thus, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be dismissed and the appellant is entitled to decree of his counter-claim. On the basis of the arguments raised above, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: 1. Whether Ex.D-1 in proof of counter-claim of the appellant was not sufficient to prove the case of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that appellant executed a pronote and receipt in question and he appended his signatures, after admitting the contents of the pronote and receipt as correct. In fact, the appellant has stressed the point that the plaintiff- respondent owes a huge sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to him on the basis of receipt/slip Ex.D-1. A perusal of the said receipt does not lead to the inference that plaintiff was to pay Rs.7,50,000/- to the defendant and in this regard the said slip was issued. Merely name and parentage of the defendant are written on it and his village name. Amount of Rs.7,50,000/- has been written on the slip and date 1st April, 2001 has also been written on it. But no where in the said slip, it has been written that the said amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. As such Ex.D-1 fails to advance the case of the defendant. RSA No.813 of 2008 4 Thus, there is no merit in the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has himself admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. It is well settled that the admitted facts need not be proved and opinion of the expert cannot override the direct evidence. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 25.03.2009 neenu