RSA No. 1166 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1166 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.10.09 Pishora Singh son of Chitti Singh son of Sh. Inder Singh, r/o village Chand Bhan, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot. ... Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh son of Santokh Singh son of Chanan Singh, r/o Jaitu Mandi, Sabji Mandi Market, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 19.12.06, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and the judgment and decree, dated 31.05.07, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Pishora Singh, defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, from the plaintiff, on 22.12.01. The pronote and receipt, were executed by the RSA No. 1166 of 2008 2 defendant/appellant, on 22.12.01, in lieu of borrowing the loan. Neither the principal amount, nor interest, was paid, by the defendant, to the plaintiff. A notice, was also served upon the defendant, by the plaintiff, for repayment of the amount, but he refused to accept the same. The defendant, was many a time, asked to repay the loan amount, alongwith the agreed rate of interest, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for recovery, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was denied that the defendant borrowed loan, from the plaintiff, and executed the pronote and receipt, in consideration thereof. It was stated that the plaintiff is a cloth merchant, at Jaitu, and is closely related to Harnam Singh, Vakil Singh and other commission agents of Jaitu, at whose instance, the suit had been filed by him. It was further stated that even the father of the defendant, was kidnapped by the aforesaid persons, about one and a half year back. It was further stated that the thumb impressions of the father of the defendant, were obtained, on some blank papers, at that time. It was further stated that the defendant did not purchase any cloth, from the plaintiff. It was further stated that there was no reason, on the part of the defendant, to borrow the loan, from the plaintiff, as he belonged to a well do to family. It was further stated that the thumb impressions of the defendant, were forged and fabricated. It was further stated that the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, were also violated by the RSA No. 1166 of 2008 3 plaintiff, as he did not advance the loan amount through a negotiable instrument. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Rs. 80,000/-, alongwith interest, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 22.12.01 as alleged?OPP (ii) Whether the plaint is not verified according to law? OPD (iii) Whether the thumb impressions of the defendants were obtained on blank papers? OPD (iv) Whether the pronote and receipt dated 22.12.01, are forged and fabricated documents? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.07. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Courts RSA No. 1166 of 2008 4 below, recorded perverse findings, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, that the appellant, obtained a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, as loan, from the plaintiff/respondent, on 23.12.01, and executed the pronote P1 and receipt P2. He further submitted that pronote P1, was also without consideration. He further submitted that the thumb impressions of the appellant, were obtained, on blank papers, which were, later on, converted into pronote and receipt. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the execution, legality, and validity of the pronote, stood proved, from the evidence, produced by the respondent. He further submitted that, once the execution of the pronote, was proved, statutory presumption operated, that the same, was for valid consideration. He further submitted that no evidence worth the name, was led, by the defendant/appellant, that his thumb impressions, were obtained, on blank papers, which were, later on, converted into pronote P1 and receipt P2. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, and not the result of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, were liable to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, RSA No. 1166 of 2008 5 SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention is very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Kewal Krishan, Deed Writer, while appearing, as PW3, stated that a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, was obtained, as loan, by the defendant, from the plaintiff, on 22.12.01, and he executed the pronote P1 and receipt P2. He further stated that the pronote and the receipt, were read over and explained, to the defendant, who after admitting the same to be correct, signed the same. Sadhu Singh, PW1, an attesting witness of receipt P2, also corroborated the statement of Kewal Krishan, Deed Writer, PW3. Amarjit Singh, respondent, while appearing, as his own witness, also deposed, that the defendant, obtained a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, on 22.12.01, and executed the pronote P1, and receipt P2, in his favour. The story, put up by the defendant, in the written statement, to the effect, that his thumb impressions, were obtained, on blank papers, which were, later on, RSA No. 1166 of 2008 6 converted into pronote and receipt, was belied, on account of the reason, that P1 and P2, pronote and receipt, respectively, bear the signatures of the defendant, and not his thumb impressions. The Courts below, correctly read the evidence, produced by the parties, duly appreciated the same, and, thereafter, came to the conclusion, that the case of the plaintiff, stood proved. 12. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE