Regular Second Appeal No.3050 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3050 of 2010 Date of Decision:-20.9.2011 Baldev Singh ...Appellant Versus Jit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Ms.Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Garg, Advocate for the respondent. 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 contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for deciding the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Jeet Singh son of Gurdial Singh respondent-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery of ` 91,000/- alongwith interest against Baldev Singh son of Karnail Singh appellant-defendant (for short “the defendant”), inter- alia pleading that the defendant had obtained a loan of ` 91,000/- and duly executed the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt dated 7.7.2000 (Ex.P2) in his favour with a promise to return the indicated amount to him on demand, but the defendant did not repay the amount alongwith interest despite repeated requests. It necessitated him (plaintiff) to file the suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No.3050 of 2010 -2- filed the suit for a decree for recovery against the defendant in the manner depicted hereinbefore. 3. To begin with, since the defendant did not appear despite service, so, the trial Court exparte decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 12.9.2005. In the wake of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the statement of plaintiff, the exparte decree was set aside and the defendant was permitted to contest the suit. Thereafter, he filed his written statement, inter-alia raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. According to the defendant that the pronote (Ex.P1), receipt (Ex.P2) were forged & fabricated documents and without consideration. The factum of receipt amount of loan, execution of pronote and receipt was denied. The defendant has denied all remaining allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary 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 prove their respective pleaded cases. 6. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 91000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a., by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009. 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed with costs as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 5.2.2010 8. The appellant-defendant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees and preferred the instant regular second appeal. Regular Second Appeal No.3050 of 2010 -3- 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this respect. 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 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. In order to prove the execution of pronote, receipt and passing of the consideration amount, the plaintiff examined the attesting witnesses i.e. Mithu Singh (PW1) and Darshan Singh (PW3), while the plaintiff himself appeared as his own witness as PW2. PW1 and PW3 have duly corroborated the case of the plaintiff on all vital counts and proved the execution of pronote, receipt and passing of consideration amount. The mere fact that the defendant is a resident of village Lal Kalan, Tehsil Munak, while the plaintiff is residing at village Kahneke, Tehsil Barnala, ipso facto, is not a ground to ignore the transaction, which is otherwise proved by cogent evidence brought on record by him (plaintiff) as discussed hereinbefore. 12. Sequelly, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by way of impugned judgment dated 10.11.2009, which, in substance, is (para 14) as under:- “14. The fact remains that by leading his positive evidence through PW1 to PW3 plaintiff has discharged his initial onus to prove that these pronote and receipt Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were executed by defendant in presence of attesting witnesses PW1 and PW3 on 7.7.2000 against receipt of cash loan of Rs.91,000/- and had signed these pronote and receipt. Simple denial on the part of defendant is not enough to counter such positive evidence. His signatures on written statement also patently tally with the signatures on revenue stamps on pronote and receipt Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. He has not dared to examine any finger Prints Expert to prove that these signatures on revenue stamps in pronote and receipt Regular Second Appeal No.3050 of 2010 -4- Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are not his signatures. In the absence of such steps from defendant, it cannot be taken that these signatures on pronote and receipt Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are not of defendant. PW1 to PW3 are consistent in their statements that out of loan amount of Rs.91,000/-, Rs.90,000/- were in the shape of nine bundles bearing bank slips and remaining Rs.1000/- were loose currency notes. Keeping in view these unimpeached statements of PW1 to PW3 I conclude that plaintiff has been able to prove on file that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.91000/- from him on 7.7.2000 against execution of pronote and receipt Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. It is not the version of defendant that he has repaid the amount. 13. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 5.2.2010. Moreover, 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 concurrent findings of fact that it stands duly proved on record the pronote (Ex.P1), receipt (Ex.P2) and passing of amount of consideration. 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 already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. Regular Second Appeal No.3050 of 2010 -5- 16. Similarly, the entire case 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 parties. 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