IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4643 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 31, 2011 Jasmer Singh .. Appellant Vs. Narjit Kaur .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. P.C. Suman, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amloh, vide its judgment dated 14.2.2009, decreed the suit for recovery of `1,55,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 19.1.2005 and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization against the defendants with proportionate costs. The appeal against which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Fatehgarh Sahib on 21.8.2009. The facts essential for disposal of the case are that Narjit Kaur plaintiff had filed a suit through her power of attorney Tejinder Singh for recovery of `2,01,500/-, on the basis of a promissory note and receipt dated 19.1.2005. After executing the promissory note and receipt, which was scribed by the plaintiff himself, recorded that he has received `1,55,000/- and thereafter appended his signatures. Having failed to repay the amount, the suit was preferred. The suit was contested wherein the defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and passing of the consideration thereunder. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues : 1. Whether defendant on 19.2.2005 took a loan of `1,55,000/- from the plaintiff through general power of attorney Tejinder Singh and executed pronote and R.S.A. No. 4643 of 2009 (O&M) -2- *** receipt?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether documents in question are the result of fraud and sham transaction?OPD 4. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately the trial court decreed the suit. Appeal preferred by the defendant was also dismissed. In order to press issue No.3, learned counsel for the appellant urged that it is a sham transaction. Narjit Kaur has not come to India to make the payment. The agreement is forged and false document because in the promissory note, the amount is stated to have been received by the defendant from one Harjit Kaur, but Harjit Kaur is not plaintiff in the suit. Having considered these contentions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, in order to rebut the same, this court is of the view that the promissory note and the receipt are valid documents and have been executed for consideration. The power of attorney dated 19.3.2007 indicates that it was executed by Narjit Kaur sister of general power of attorney Tejinder Singh. The legality of this power of attorney has not been challenged in any manner. The case of the plaintiff is that Tejinder Singh being the power of attorney had advanced the money to the defendant on behalf of Narjit Kaur. It has also come in evidence that the promissory note has been scribed by the defendant himself. No doubt there is mention of Harjit Kaur in the promissory note Ex.P2, but the receipt Ex.P3 indicates that the amount of `1,55,000/- was received by the defendant from Narjit Kaur through her attorney Tejinder Singh. There is no evidence that Tejinder Singh has any other sister in the name of Harjit Kaur. If the defendant intelligently or otherwise by way of inadvertence had mentioned the name of Harjit Kaur in Ex.P2, that hardly makes any difference when as per receipt Ex.P3 defendant himself mentioned that he received the money from Narjit Kaur that is why both the courts below have not found much force in this argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. R.S.A. No. 4643 of 2009 (O&M) -3- *** In any case, having examined the entire evidence, it transpires that the word “Harjit” as mentioned in the promissory note Ex.P3 is only a camouflage just to get rid of the repayment of the loan. The appellant is B.Sc. B.Ed. teacher. He himself scribed the pronote in his own hand writing with regard to receipt of the amount. Now he cannot refuse the liability. No substantial question of law could be framed for determination. No merits. Dismissed. October 31, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge