IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.2175-C of 2009 In C.M. No. 10619-C of 2008 and In RSA No. 3570 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.2.2009 Dilbagh Singh … Applicant- Appellant. Versus. Satwinder Singh … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. M. S. Dhami, Advocate, for the applicant- appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C. M. No. 2175-C of 2009: For the cause shown in the application, the order dated 28.1.2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution is hereby recalled and the case is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of accordingly. C.M. No. 10619-C of 2008: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 115 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 3570 of 2008: The present appellant, Dilbagh Singh, was the defendant in the suit for recovery preferred against him by plaintiff, Satwinder Singh for recovery of Rs.105285/-. i.e. Rs. 83560/- as principal amount and Rs.21,725/- as interest thereon, on the basis of composition/compromise- deed dated 6.12.2003 executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. In the suit, plaintiff claimed that the defendant took a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from him in the year 2002. Some amount of the said loan was returned, leaving behind outstanding amount of Rs.83560/-. Resultantly, a Panchayat was convened in which the defendant admitted/acknowledged his liability to pay the said amount of Rs.83560/- and in lieu thereof, RSA No. 3570 of 2008 -2- executed a written agreement in the shape of compromise, thereby undertaking to repay the aforesaid outstanding amount. According to the plaintiff, the defendant backed out of the said compromise and rather filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, which after contest, was dismissed by the trial Court. In that suit also, the defendant admitted the factum of having borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as loan and his liability to repay the balance outstanding loan of Rs.83560/-, besides the execution of compromise-deed as stated above. When still the defendant did not make the payment of outstanding amount, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Upon notice, defendant put in appearance and filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He though admitted the execution of compromise dated 6.12.2003 but took the stand that after execution of compromise, he had repaid the outstanding amount of Rs.83560/- to plaintiff Satwinder Singh who then cancelled agreement dated 30.9.2002 and thus, nothing was due against him. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties before it, disbelieved the plea taken by the defendant and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiff thereby holding him entitled to recover Rs.105285/- which included interest as mentioned therein. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the defendant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties have concurrently held that defendant has utterly failed to produce an iota of evidence to prove his assertion that he repaid the balance amount and he not only failed to prove as to when the said payment was made but also failed to produce any writing/agreement or receipt of the amount paid; rather on the other hand the plaintiff by producing cogent and reliable evidence, has been able to prove the falsity of the plea of the defendant in regard to alleged repayment of outstanding amount of Rs.83560/- and cancellation of alleged agreement dated 30.9.2002 observing that if the defendant had allegedly made the payment on 6.12.2003, there was no need for execution of the agreement of the said date. It has been observed that defendant, Dilbagh Singh, while stepping into the witness-box RSA No. 3570 of 2008 -3- as DW-1 himself in his cross-examination has admitted that no writing took place between him and the plaintiff after 6.12.2003. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. February 20, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE