Regular Second Appeal No.2700 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2700 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 22, 2009 Kuldip Singh and others ...........Appellants Versus Saudagar Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich,Advocate for the appellants ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Saudagar Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,90,000/- against the defendants. The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amloh vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2008. Aggrieved by the same, defendants filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District Judge, in para 2 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant Labh Singh took loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 12.5.1999 and executed pronote and receipt in his favour. The rate of interest was settled as 1.56% per month. The loan was repayable on demand, but defendant failed to repay the loan amount despite repeated requests by the plaintiff. Hence, this suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were Regular Second Appeal No.2700 of 2009(O&M) 2 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant incurred a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.5.1999 and executed pronote and receipt pronote in favour of plaintiff? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount with interest. If so to what amount and at what rate?OPP 3. Whether pronote and receipt has been cancelled vide agreement dt. 12.5.999, if so, its effect?OPD 4. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt, Exhibits P1 and P2, respectively. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW3 and examined deed writer Gurpal Singh, PW2. Both the said witnesses have deposed with regard to the due execution of the pronote and receipt. PW4 Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting expert submitted his report to the effect that the questioned thumb impressions on the pronote matched with the standard thumb impression of Labh Singh. However, no opinion could be given with regard to the disputed thumb impressions on the receipt as had been affixed with heavy ink and was not clear for comparison. A perusal of the pronote and receipt (shown at the time of arguments) reveals that the same have been thumb marked by Labh Singh. There is nothing on record to suggest that the pronote and reply do not bear Regular Second Appeal No.2700 of 2009(O&M) 3 the thumb impressions of Labh Singh. The fact that the attesting witness of the receipt, Exhibit P2 was not examined is of no substance as receipt is not required by law to be attested. Moreover, the scribe PW2 Gurpal Singh had deposed with regard to the due execution of the pronote and receipt. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 22, 2009 arya Regular Second Appeal No.2700 of 2009(O&M) 4 1. The facts, in brief, are that Chint Singh appellant-plaintiff joined as peon with Chandigarh office of defendants on 8.8.1965 and was promoted as Daftri on 1.6.1974. He retired from service on 31.1.2001. The defendants introduced `one time bound promotion' scheme for Grade C and D employees under which benefit of higher scale was to be granted to the employees on completion of 16 years of service vide letter dated 17.12.1983. But these benefits were not given to the Daftries. On representation of the Daftries, the scheme was extended to the Daftries also vide letter dated 14.3.1991. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said letter was neither circulated nor got noted down from him and as such he is deprived of the benefit of the scheme. He came to know about the letter dated 14.3.1991 only in November,2000 when he visited Circle Office, Sector 34, Chandigarh. He made representation on 19.11.2001 for getting the new pay scale under this scheme and the same was decided vide impugned order dated 9.4.2003 on the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal given vide order dated 10.1.2000. He preferred a civil writ petition No.11628 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.1.2004 (Ex.P6); relegating to avai the remedy by way of civil suit. It is also pleaded that Roshan Lal, Subhash Chand and Satish who were working as Daftries were also not informed about the order dated 14.3.1991. That he is entitled to claim the benefits of the scheme which have been illegally declined vide order dated 19.4.2003. Thus, the plaintiff filed the suit that the order dated 9.4.2003 is illegal and void and Regular Second Appeal No.2700 of 2009(O&M) 5 he is entitled to all the benefits as per letter dated 14.3.1991 and the defendants be directed to re-fix his pay under new scale and release the payment with interest @ 18% per annum. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaitniff has not served a legal notice under Section 80 CPC on the defendants, if so its effect?OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had based his claim seeking `one time bound promotion' scale vide letter dated 14.3.1991 (Exhibit P1). The learned District Judge in its judgment has observed that during the cross- examination, plaintiff himself stated that a letter was received from the Government in the year 1983 which was not applicable to him. The letter was again received in the year 1991 for giving selection grade to daftries having 16 years of service. That the person seeking the selection grade was to give the option within six months' from the date of the said letter. Plaintiff has not given any option to seek the said Scheme. In these Regular Second Appeal No.2700 of 2009(O&M) 6 circumstances, the learned District Judge rightly observed that the plaintiff had taken a false plea that the letter dated 14.3.1991 had never been brought to his notice and he came to know about the same only in November, 2000. Since the plaintiff has not submitted his option for the Scheme within six months from the date of issuance of the said letter, he could not claim the said benefits by filing the suit in the year 2004