RSA No.3181 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3181 of 2006 Date of decision: 5.3.2009 Joginder Singh ......Appellant Versus Baljit Singh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6 % per annum with effect from the date of raising of the loan till its realization, has been decreed. In the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent alleged that the appellant borrowed from him a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.8.2000 and after receiving the consideration amount, executed a pronote and receipt in his favour in presence of the attesting witnesses and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per annum. Since the defendant-appellant failed to repay the aforesaid amount, the plaintiff-respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs.3,82,500/- with interest at the rate of 1% per month. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement denying therein that he borrowed any sum from the plaintiff and also denied the execution of pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. It was RSA No.3181 of 2006 2 contended that the pronote and receipt in question were forged and fabricated. He also contended that in fact, he had been selling his crops at the Commission Agency of Arvind Sikri who had obtained his signatures on a few blank pronote forms just as a security for the advancement of the loan. The defendant discontinued selling his crops through the said Commission Agency in the year 1997 and started selling his crops through M/s. Sidhu Trad, Sohangarh. Annoyed by this, Arvind Sikri got filed a suit for recovery on the basis of alleged pronote and receipt through Jarnail Singh, who is the owner of M/s Sidhu Traders. He further contended that he agitated regarding his balance outstanding with Arvind Sikri. A sum of Rs.35,000/- was found outstanding against the defendant. The defendant promised to repay this amount to Arvind Sikri within a few days. The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- from M/s. Sidhu Traders and paid the same to Arvind Sikri and his accounts with Arvind Sikri stood settled finally. The defendant demanded back the signed blank pronotes from Arvind Sikri, who promised to return the same, but did not do so on one pretext or the other. Arvind Sikri fabricated the blank pronote and receipt bearing the signatures of the defendant. The defendant-appellant prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for recovery. After hearing the parties and going through the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 22.7.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.5.2006. While allowing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court held that execution of the pronote and receipt and the passing of the consideration amount has been duly proved by the attesting witnesses, RSA No.3181 of 2006 3 namely, Harjinder Singh PW-1 and Balbir Singh PW-2 and there is no reason to disbelieve either of them. While recording the aforesaid finding, the Lower Appellate Court rejected the plea of the appellant that the pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents as its scribe has not been examined by the plaintiff. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the evidence on the contents of the document i.e. pronote is a hearsay evidence unless the writer thereof is examined before the Court and if the entire document is held formally proved, that does not amount to a proof of truthfulness of the contents of the document and the only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document is the writer thereof. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has cited Sir Mohammed Yusuf and another v. D and another 1968 Bombay 112 and has argued that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal that: “Whether the contents of a document can be held to be proved in the absence of the writer of the document?” However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the Lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that execution of the document stands duly proved by examination of the marginal witnesses of the disputed pronote and receipt and no question of law as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant arises in this appeal and the same being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. RSA No.3181 of 2006 4 The suit for recovery filed by the respondent is based upon pronote and receipt which have been proved to have been duly executed by the appellant from the examination of marginal witnesses. The stand taken by the appellant was that he never executed any such document and these pronote and receipt have been fabricated on the blank pronote and receipt bearing the signatures of defendant by Arvind Sikri who has got filed this suit for recovery. However, the plea of the appellant that pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents have not been proved on record. Thus, in such a situation, a party seeking to prove the execution of the document is not required to prove that the executant knew the contents thereof when the executant denied having signed it and had pleaded that it is a forgery. I am supported, in my view, by a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar, (dead) by his legal representatives and others AIR 1971 SC 2548. In view of the aforesaid authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit. No other point has been urged. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. March 5, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3181 of 2006 5