IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3742 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: December 05, 2011 M/s Bhuller and Company and another .. Appellants Vs. Baljinder Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the appellants. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) Baljinder Singh plaintiff had filed a suit against M/s Bhuller and Company and others defendants- appellants (herein referred as, 'the defendants') alleging that the defendant No.1 was a Commission Agent firm at Faridkot and he used to sell his agricultural produce on the shop of the said firm. On 1.11.2001, The plaintiff- respondent (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff') advanced a sum of `1,00,000/- to the defendant firm against which he was given acknowledgment on Firm's letter pad, but since the money was not returned, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of `1,00,000/- as principal and `51550/- as interest thereon. The defendants No.2 and 4 contested the suit. They denied all the averments and sought its dismissal. The defendants No.1 and 3 did not put in appearance and were proceeded against ex-parte. Replication was also filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court, vide order dated 11.11.2004, framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recover `1 lac along with interest, as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the receipt dated 1.11.2001 is not admissible in evidence?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has filed the present suit to harass, R.S.A. No. 3742 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** harm and drag the entire family of the defendants?OPD 6. Whether the name of defendant No.1 is liable to be struck off from the array of the defendants?OPD 7. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the trial court vide judgment dated 8.5.2008 decreed the suit for a sum of `1 lac along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the execution of the receipt i.e. 1.11.2001 till realization of the decretal amount. The Appellate Court, also dismissed the appeal. Both the courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the defendant firm had received an advance of `1 lac from the plaintiff on 1.11.2001 and had issued receipt Ex.P1 on the letter pad of the firm. That apart, Gurbachan Singh (DW1) admits, during his cross- examination, that Sukhdev Singh is his son and defendant Gurmail Kaur is his wife and the writing/receipt Ex.P1 is on the letter pad of the firm. Similarly, Baljinder Singh (PW2) clearly underlines the fact that it was none but Sukhdev Singh (one of the partner of the firm), who after taking the loan, had executed the receipt Ex.P1. No cogent evidence has been led by the defendants in order to establish if the receipt is fake or fabricated document. Both the courts below have returned the concurrent findings of fact that the receipt is quite genuine and was given to the plaintiff while acknowledging the advance. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this case for determination. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed in limine. December 05, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge