RSA No. 2985 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2985 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.08.2009 Major Singh son of Nand Singh son of Karpal Singh r/o village Ladhaheri, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. ... Appellant Versus Ram Dayal son of Sh. Hari Kishan, r/o village Sadhoheri, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed, against the judgement and decree dated 24.04.09, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Patiala, vide which, it accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 11.10.06, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 2. On 23.04.97, the defendant took a cash loan of Rs. 25,000/-, from the plaintiff, and executed the pronote and receipt of the even date, in his favour. He also agreed to pay interest @ 1.56% per mensum. Despite repeated demands, the defendant, failed to repay the amount, with interest. RSA No. 2985 of 2009 2 On his final refusal, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was denied by him that he obtained a loan of Rs. 25,000/-, from the plaintiff and executed the pronote and receipt, in his favour. It was stated that the pronote and receipt, were forged and fabricated documents. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the defendant took loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff on 23.04.97, and executed pronote and receipt in his favour? OPP (ii) Whether the defendant agreed to pay the interest, if so, at what rate? OPP (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Whether the pronote and receipt are forged, fabricated documents and same are without consideration? OPD (vi) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff, which was accepted by the Court of District Judge, Patiala, vide judgement and decree dated 24.04.2009. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. RSA No. 2985 of 2009 3 8. I have heard the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that Anwar Khan and Jagtar Singh, two attesting witnesses of the pronote and receipt, were not examined by the plaintiff/respondent. He further submitted that, as such, the execution of pronote and receipt, was not proved. He further submitted that the trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion that, in the absence of the examination of the attesting witnesses, the execution of pronote and receipt was not proved. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence, resulting into recording of perverse findings, that the execution of pronote and receipt stood proved, leading to the passing of judgement and decree, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, illegally. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, 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 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 RSA No. 2985 of 2009 4 the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The execution of pronote P1, and receipt P2, was proved by Suresh Kumar, Deed Writer, PW2, and Ram Dayal, plaintiff, who appeared as PW1. When Major Singh, defendant, appeared as DW1, during the course of his cross-examination, he stated that the signatures on some of the documents, looked like, to small extent, his signatures. No doubt, he denied his signatures, on the pronote and receipt. In the face of reliable evidence of Suresh Kumar, Deed Writer, PW2, and Ram Dayal, plaintiff/respondent, who appeared as PW1, the first Appellate Court, in my considered opinion, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that even, in the absence of examination of Anwar Khan and Jagtar Singh, two attesting witnesses of the receipt and pronote, the execution of the aforesaid documents, stood duly proved. It is further evident from the judgement of the first Appellate Court, that certain documents, were scribed by Suresh Kumar, Scribe, PW2, in favour of Anwar Khan, one of the attesting witnesses. However, that fact, did not at all cast any doubt, on the execution, legality and validity of pronote P1 and receipt P2. No evidence was produced by the defendant/appellant, to prove, that the pronote and receipt, were forged and fabricated documents. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, are based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, and suffer from no illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, being without merit,must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. RSA No. 2985 of 2009 5 12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 11.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE