RSA No. 3102 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3102 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.10.09 Bhajan Singh son of Roor Singh resident of village Maujewala, Tehsil Moga, District Moga. ... Appellant Versus Pippal Singh son of Tara Singh, r/o village Bandala Nau, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.06, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Zira, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and the judgment and decree, dated 14.05.09, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the defendant,borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, from the plaintiff, after executing the pronote and receipt, scribed by Amrik Singh, and witnessed by Amar Singh and Lakha Singh. The defendant, agreed to repay the borrowed amount, with interest @ 2% per month, but he neither returned the principal RSA No. 3102 of 2009 2 amount, nor the interest. The defendant, was many a time, asked to repay the borrowed amount alongwith interest, but to no avail. Ultimately, 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 stated that the defendant, was the customer of M/s Gurmakh Singh Mukesh Kumar, Commission Agents, where he used to sell his wheat crop about 5/6 years back, and settled his account, but the partner of the firm, alleged that, some amount, was still due, against him. It was further stated that the owners of the said firm, with the help of their relatives, including the plaintiff, got executed the pronote, from the defendant, forcibly. It was further stated that the pronote and receipt, were the result of fraud and misrepresentation. It was further stated that the same were prepared with the help of the local Police. It was further stated that the pronote and receipt, are not legal and valid. It was further stated that since the defendant, never borrowed any amount, from the plaintiff, the question of execution of pronote and receipt, did not at all arise. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest if so at what rate? OPP RSA No. 3102 of 2009 3 (iii) Whether alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents? OPD (iv) Whether the alleged pronote is without consideration? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.09. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no loan, in the sum of Rs. 80,000/-, was obtained by the defendant/appellant, from the plaintiff, on 11.07.92, nor did he execute the pronote and receipt, in his favour. He further submitted that the pronote and receipt, were forged and fabricated documents. He further submitted that, even pronote P1, was without consideration. He further submitted that the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence that the execution, legality, and validity of pronote and receipt, stood proved. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were RSA No. 3102 of 2009 4 liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable 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 trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention is 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. Lakha Singh, PW2, is marginal witness of receipt P2. He stated that Bhajan Singh, borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, on 11.07.92, from the plaintiff/respondent, and executed the pronote P1 and receipt P2, respectively, in his favour, on the same date. He further stated that the contents of these documents, were read over and explained, to the defendant, who thumb-marked the same, in token of correctness. Amar Singh, another attesting witness of receipt P2, also made a similar statement. Pippal Singh, plaintiff, when RSA No. 3102 of 2009 5 appeared, as PW1, also corroborated the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. It was further stated by him, that no amount, either towards principal or towards interest, had been paid, by the defendant, till the filing of the suit. A plea, was taken up by the defendant, in the written statement, that his thumb impressions, were obtained, on blank papers, by detaining him, in the Police Station, but no complaint, was lodged by him,before the higher Police authorities. No evidence, worth the name, was produced, by the defendant, to prove this factum. Even, he did not appear, as his own witness. Once, from the cogent and convincing evidence, the execution of pronote P1, was proved, the statutory presumption operated, that the same, was for valid consideration, until the same, was rebutted. As stated above, no evidence, to rebut such evidence, was produced. It is further evident, from the judgement of the trial Court, that a number of opportunities, were granted, to the defendant, to produce his evidence, but he failed to do so, and ultimately, the same was closed. 11. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, was borrowed, by the defendant, from the plaintiff; that he executed the pronote and receipt, in his favour, on 11.07.92; that the pronote and receipt, were not forged and fabricated documents; and that the plaintiff, was entitled to the recovery of the amount, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The RSA No. 3102 of 2009 6 judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE