RSA No.5123 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5123 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 04.02.2011 Ishwar Singh ... Appellant Versus M/s Om Parkash Suresh Kumar ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present : Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.Mittal, J.(Oral) CM No.15101-C of 2010 This is application filed by appellant for condonation of delay of 412 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that after judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of plaintiff- respondent for recovery of money with interest, the defendant- appellant was depressed and distressed and lost his mental balance and therefore, could not file the appeal within limitation. I have heard counsel for the appellant and peruse the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the version pleaded in the application. I have carefully considered the same but it cannot be accepted. The long delay of 412 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned on such ground. Except self serving affidavit of the appellant, there is no other material in support of the averments made in the application. On the contrary, on the basis of aforesaid vague, general and specious averment made in the application, long delay of more than 13 months cannot be condoned, even if the said RSA No.5123 of 2010 (O&M) -2- averments are taken at face value. If such long delay is condoned on the basis of such averments, the very purpose of law of limitation would be completely defeated. There is practically no ground, much less sufficient ground, for condonation of long delay of 412 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. Main Case Since the application for condonation of 412 days in filing the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is liable to dismissal as time barred. However, even on merits, the appellant cannot succeed. Defendant- Ishwar Singh having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below has filed this second appeal. Plaintiff-respondent M/s Om Parkash Suresh Kumar through proprietor Suresh Kumar son of Om Parkash filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.3,60,000/-, alleging that on 25.4.2002, defendant borrowed Rs.3 lacs from the plaintiff-respondent and agreed to pay the same with interest @ 1.50% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same. However, defendant did not repay the loan amount and interest thereof in spite of service of notice by registered post. Accordingly, plaintiff sought recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,00,000 as principal amount and Rs.60,000/- as interest. Defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant pleaded that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor signed any pronote. The suit is based on fraud and mischief played by the plaintiff. The pronote was not properly executed and the transaction is void. Various other pleas were also raised. RSA No.5123 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Narwana vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- with pendente lite interest @ 1.50% per month and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant has been dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge-II, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff examined Anil Kumar Gupta Handwriting Expert as PW-1. He stated that the disputed signatures of defendant on pronote and receipt match with his specimen signatures. Mahender Pal – PW-2 is Munim (Accountant) of the plaintiff. He has stated according to plaintiff's version. He also stated that he had scribed and read over the pronote and receipt to the defendant who after admitting the same as correct and after receiving the amount of Rs.3 lacs affixed signatures on the pronote and receipt. Entries to this effect were also made in accounts books of the plaintiff. The said entries have also been proved. The plaintiff's proprietor Suresh Kumar also appeared in the witness box and stated according to his version. On the other hand, defendant- appellant did not lead any evidence whatsoever. From the aforesaid, it is manifest that plaintiff's evidence stand unrebutted. Plaintiff has led cogent evidence which is sufficient to prove his case. The defendant himself also did not dare to appear in the witness box and therefore, very strong adverse presumption arises against the defendant. Mahender Pal – PW-2 is scribe of the pronote RSA No.5123 of 2010 (O&M) -4- and receipt in question and he stated that the same was duly executed by the defendant after receiving the loan amount of Rs. 3 lacs. His statement was further corroborated by entries in the accounts books. There are also statements of plaintiff's proprietor himself and of handwriting expert. All this evidence is cogent and credible and sufficient to prove the plaintiff's case. There is nothing on record to doubt or discredit the aforesaid evidence led by the plaintiff. At the risk of repetition, it may be highlighted that defendant himself did not step into the witness box nor led any other evidence whatsoever. In this view of the matter, both the courts below have rightly come to the concurrent finding in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant- appellant. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 04, 2011 (L.N.Mittal) sonia Judge