R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 19, 2011 Harcharan Singh .... Appellant Vs. Kaushlaya Devi .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4878-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 4879-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. C. M. No. 4880-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Defendant Harcharan Singh having remained unsuccessful in R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) 2 both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Kaushlaya Devi filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.3,29,600/- alleging that on 31.01.2001, defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.80% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but the defendant failed to repay the principal amount and interest. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,29,600/- as interest till the filing of the suit, at the agreed rate. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed any pronote and receipt in question. The defendant alleged that plaintiff is resident of Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) and is not resident of Gidderbaha, District Muktsar (Punjab). Plaintiff's son Jawahar Lal also filed separate suit against the defendant on the basis of similar pronote and receipt of even date. Both the pronotes and receipts are forged and fabricated documents. Plaintiff's other son Ravinder Kumar carries on business as Commission Agent at Gidderbaha. Defendant sold his crop at his shop in the year 1997-98. The dispute arose when defendant demanded amount of his crop. Said Ravinder Kumar obtained defendant's signatures on blank printed forms at the time of sale of crop by the defendant at his shop and the said forms have been misused by the plaintiff by filing the R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) 3 instant suit on the basis thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gidderbaha, vide judgment and decree dated 02.06.2010, decreed the plaintiff's suit for principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 1.80% per month from the date of pronote-cum-receipt till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide judgment and decree dated 07.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff herself stepped into the witness-box and also examined one marginal witness of pronote-cum-receipt and also its scribe. All of them have supported the plaintiff's case. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness- box and also examined three other witnesses. They have also supported the defendant's case. Case of the defendant is that plaintiff's son had obtained signatures of the defendant on blank printed forms, when the defendant sold his crop at the shop of plaintiff's son and the impugned pronote-cum-receipt has been fabricated thereon. However, the defendant has miserably failed to substantiate his said version. Firstly, there was no occasion for the defendant to affix his signatures on blank printed forms at the instance of R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) 4 plaintiff's son, while selling his (defendant's) crop at the shop of plaintiff's son. Secondly, the defendant in the written statement pleaded that blank signed printed form has been misused by the plaintiff for filing the instant suit. This plea implies that the defendant admitted his signatures on the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. However, in the witness-box, defendant denied his signatures on the pronote-cum-receipt in question. If the pronote-cum-receipt in question does not bear the signatures of the defendant, his plea that his signatures had been obtained on blank printed forms by plaintiff's son becomes completely irrelevant. On the contrary, the plea that blank signed printed forms have been misused to file the suit would clearly depict admission on the part of defendant that the impugned pronote-cum-receipt bears his signatures. Thirdly, plaintiff has also led evidence that the defendant in his own handwriting has also written on the pronote-cum-receipt regarding receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. This writing further falsifies the defendant's version. Both the courts below, after analyzing the evidence led by the parties, have come to concurrent finding in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not depicted to be illegal or perverse nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding cannot be interfered with in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) 5 plaintiff's son also filed a separate suit against the defendant on the basis of pronote-cum-receipt of even date. However, it is beyond comprehension as to how this contention helps the appellant or negatives the claim of plaintiff- respondent. If the defendant-appellant took loan from the plaintiff and her son on the same date, it cannot be said to be inherently unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant also vehemently contended that onus of issue no.2 was changed from the plaintiff to defendant at the fag end of trial without affording any further opportunity to defendant to lead evidence on said issue. The contention is misconceived and lacks any substance. Issue no.2 is reproduced hereunder :- “2. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated ? OPP” This issue has been framed on the basis of plea raised by defendant-appellant in the written statement that the impugned pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated. However, it appears that by clerical or typing error or otherwise, the onus of the issue was wrongly placed on the plaintiff. From the bare reading of the issue, and also from the pleadings, it is manifest that onus of this issue had to be on the defendant. The plaintiff could not be required to prove that pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated. The defendant has led his entire evidence to substantiate this plea covered by issued no.2 aforesaid. Consequently, no R. S. A. No. 1751 of 2011 (O&M) 6 further opportunity of leading evidence on this issue was required to be given to the defendant when the defendant led his entire evidence to substantiate this issue. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. April 19, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE