IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.5.2009 Balwinder Kaur .....Appellant versus Nirmal Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The present regular second appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2008 passed by the lower appellate Court affirming that of the trial Court dated 26.4.2006 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest, was decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,08,000/- with the averments that in November, 1996, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from him for purchasing a tanker by her husband for doing the business of carrying on the petroleum products. At the time of advancement of the loan, the defendant executed agreement in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- would be a charge on the property bearing House No. B1-556, Janta Colony, Suranussi, District Jalandhar, owned by the defendant. The defendant also executed an affidavit acknowledging the receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2009 -2- from the plaintiff and also promised to repay the same. It was pleaded that on 17.2.1998, the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant for the repayment of the loan amount but instead of returning the loan amount, the defendant requested the plaintiff for another sum of Rs.18,500/- with the assurance that she would return the whole amount of Rs.3,18,500/-. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute fresh documents in her favour. Thereafter, when the plaintiff along with the defendant and her husband went to a Typist for execution of the fresh document where the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.18,500/- to the defendant, the husband of the defendant asked him to produce the original documents executed on 6.11.1996 on the pretext of signing the fresh documents. The plaintiff handed over the original agreement dated 6.11.1996 along with the affidavit executed by the defendant to her husband. The husband of the defendant took the said documents and tore the same into four pieces and he along with his wife left the place after taking the amount of Rs.18,500/- from the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to repay the said loan amount, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery, as mentioned above. The averments of the plaintiff were controverted by the defendant by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the defendant never asked the plaintiff to lend him Rs.3,00,000/-, rather it was the plaintiff who approached her to join the business of the defendant by investing Rs.3,00,000/-. The plaintiff invested Rs.3,00,000/- in the said business and agreement dated 6.11.1996 and the affidavit were executed as a receipt for having invested the said money in the business. It was R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2009 -3- further pleaded that the plaintiff was interfering in the business of the defendant being jointly run with Ashok Kumar and in order to settle the dispute regarding the payment, the original agreement was torn in pieces in the presence of the Panchayat and the entire amount was returned to the plaintiff. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the defendant had failed to establish the factum of repayment of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was admittedly taken by her as loan from the plaintiff. It was further held that since there was no term or condition with regard to the payment of interest in the agreement, the plaintiff was held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2009 -4- Courts below but failed to show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below had concurrently held that the defendant had failed to prove the repayment of the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was admittedly taken by her as loan from the plaintiff on the basis of agreement, Ex.P1, and affidavit, Ex.P3. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not call for any interference, particularly when the execution of the agreement, Ex.P1, and the affidavit, Ex.P3, was not disputed by the defendant. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. May 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE C.M. No. 5857-C of 2009 IN R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2009 Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of 176 days' delay in refiling the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of 176 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. May 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE