R.S.A.No. 3937 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3937 of 2007 Date of decision: 2.12. 2009 M/s Amrik Singh Zora Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Narinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,10,490/- and for permanent injunction, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Khanna vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2005. In appeal, filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the said judgment and decree were modified, by the District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 8.11.2006 to the extent that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendants @ R.S.A.No. 3937 of 2007 2 12% per annum for the period from 1.6.1999 to 11.12.2000 instead @ 2% per month. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.1 and 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 3 and 4 of its judgment, are as under:- “3. As averred in the plaint, the facts are that on 1.6.1999, the defendant No.2 for defendant No.1, on behalf of the defendants firm borrowed a sum of Rs.1,93,252/- from the plaintiff and issued a valid receipt dated 1.6.1999 and agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 2% per month and agreed to return the loan amount along with interest as and when demanded by the plaintiff. On 20.11.2000 the plaintiff along with Dalbar Singh alias Dalbara Singh demanded the amount from the defendants at their shop, but they flatly refused to make the payment. Thereafter, the plaintiff several times requested and approached the defendants to make the payment of the laon amount hut they failed to make the same. The defendant are jointly and severally liable to pay total amount of Rs. 3,10,490/- i.e.1,93,252/- as principal loan amount plus Rs.1,17,238/- as interest. Prayer for restraining the defendants No. 2 to 5 from alienating the property as fully delineated in the head note of the plaint is also made. Hence this suit. R.S.A.No. 3937 of 2007 3 4. Having entered appearance the defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 filed written statement, inter alia, pleading that the letter pads of the defendant No.1 were lying blank signed by Balwinder Singh in the shop of the defendants, which are usally lying in such state of affairs and as such like documents are usually obtained by the agriculturist from the commission agents by showing their such like fictitious deposits, which are required by them in the Embassies to send their children to foreign countries. The father of the plaintiff got these writings in his own name, in the name of his wife and in the name of his son Narinder Singh from Kuldeep Singh on the letter pads of the defendants, which were lying signed blank. The suit on the basis of said alleged writing is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no vaild cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. It is denied that the defendants have obtained a loan of Rs.1,93,252/- from the plaintiff for smooth running of their business. Denying all other averments specifically it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismised with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- R.S.A.No. 3937 of 2007 4 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.3,10,490/- along with interest from the defendants? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder or necessary parties? OPD 6. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,10,490/- based on a receipt executed by defendant No.2 for defendant No.1. Admittedly, defendants are running the business of commission agent. In these circumstances, it would not possible for the defendants to have issued a receipt without obtaining any money from the plaintiff. The receipt in question is Ex.P-1. The same is duly signed by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 admitted his signatures on the receipt Ex.P-1 and also admitted that it was written by Kuldeep Singh, a partner of the firm, defendant No.1. In these circumstances, the plea taken by the defendants that the receipt had been issued without any passing of consideration is without any R.S.A.No. 3937 of 2007 5 basis. The Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 02, 2009 anita