R.S.A.No. 2647 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2647 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:July 16, 2009 KulbirSingh Dhanju ---Appellant versus Harchand Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff –Harchand Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,57,630/-. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “The brief relevant facts, as emanating from the pleadings of R.S.A.No. 2647 of 2009(O&M) {2} the parties, are that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,60, 000/- from the plaintiff. The payment was received by the defendant vide cheque No. 592133 dated 14.7.1997 for Rs. 44,500/- and cheque No. 592135 dated 15.7.1997 for Rs. 71,500/- issued by the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.5 percent per month to the plaintiff on the aforesaid amount. The defendant failed to return the amount along with interest. Accordingly the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of the above principal amount along with interest calculated at the rate of 1.5% per month uptil the date of filing of the suit. The defendant in his written statement denied to have borrowed the above amount from the plaintiff as such. He further elaborated that a family settlement was arrived between the parties to the suit besides other members of the family named as Gulzar Singh, Kapoor Singh and Bishan Singh. The same was reduced into writing on 8.5.1998. It was duly signed by the parties to the suit besides all other members. It was further pleaded that the said agreement dated 8.5.1998 was acted upon partially by partition of the land in terms of this agreement. As per the above agreement the plaintiff and his brother Kapoor Singh admitted their liability to pay a sum of Rs. 3,21,500/- to the defendant and his brother Gulzar Singh. Thereafter the plaintiff along with his above brother also admitted their liability to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- in lieu of the plot situated at Dhand Road, Kaithal as per the agreement R.S.A.No. 2647 of 2009(O&M) {3} executed on 16.5.1999. In another 'panchayati faisla' arrived at on 9.1.1999 the plaintiff and his above brother Kapoor Singh further admitted their liability to pay a sum of Rs. 4,01,500/- to the defendant and his brother Gulzar Singh. It was further pleaded that these two agreements dated 9.1.1999 and 16.5.1999 were executed in terms of the agreement and award dated 8.5.1998 referred to hereinabove. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff and his brother Kapoor Singh forged and fabricated blank papers to fabricate document dated 25.10.1999. Even in that the plaintiff had admitted that there was nothing due to him from the defendant. The defendant further pleaded that he had initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 420/464/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal Code against the plaintiff and his brother Kapoor Singh for forging the above document. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff has been admitting the alleged agreements dated 9.1.1999 and 16.5.1999 consistently. In view thereof defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was estopped from his act and conduct from bringing the present suit. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the above suit. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- from the plaintiff as alleged in para No. 1 of the plaint? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 1 ½ R.S.A.No. 2647 of 2009(O&M) {4} % per month? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own set and conduct to file the present suit? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (6)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD (7)Whether the suit of plaintiff is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD (8)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of two cheques issued by him to the defendants as advancement of loan. One cheque for Rs. 44,500/- was issued on 14.7.1997 and the second cheque for Rs. 71,500/- was issued on 15.7.1997. The case of the plaintiff is that the said cheques were duly encashed by the defendant. However, the loan amount in question was not returned by the defendant. Defendant has admitted the receipt of said two cheques in question. However, the case of the defendant is that the said two cheques were issued by the plaintiff to him in discharge of his liability as reflected in subsequent settlements. The cheques in question, pertain to the share of crop of the defendant in the land which was cultivated by the plaintiff. However, the defendant has failed to substantiate his plea by leading any cogent and convincing R.S.A.No. 2647 of 2009(O&M) {5} evidence. The defendant failed to produce on record the original award dated 8.5.1998 on which reliance was placed by the defendant. Defendant also failed to place on record any panchayat decision dated 9.1.1999 and 16.5.1999. Since the defendant had failed to produce on record the said documents before the trial court, learned District Judge had rightly dismissed the application for permission to lead additional evidence as the application did not fall within the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No interference by this Court is called for. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2009 PARAMJIT