RSA.No.4208 of 2011(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA.No.4208 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.10.2011 Anoop Singh ....Appellant Versus Surinder Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Pritam Saini,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.12180-C of 2011 Application is allowed. Deficiency in filing the court fee is made good. C.M.No.12181-C of 2011 Application is allowed. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 319 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.4208 of 2011 Defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that as per the allegation of the RSA.No.4208 of 2011(O&M) #2# plaintiff-respondent, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was borrowed by defendant-appellant from his wife but the loan was not returned, hence he filed a Civil Suit No.431/2000 for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest and the same was decreed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009. An appeal No.106 of 2009 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009 by the defendant-appellant but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there is no evidence available on record to prove that the defendant-appellant has ever borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the wife of plaintiff- respondent rather it is the plaintiff-respondent, who has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the appellant and this was the amount, which was returned by way of Cheque No.664982 dated 24.12.2003. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. It has come on record that the defendant-appellant opened his bank account No.01170015172 on 24.12.2003 by depositing Rs.500/- with the State Bank of Patiala, Kurukshetra and on the same very day, he deposited a Cheque No.664982 (P.3) for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and this account payee cheque was issued by Pal RSA.No.4208 of 2011(O&M) #3# Agriculture Farm, Chibba. It has also come on record that Harbans Kaur wife of the plaintiff-respondent was owner in possession of the said Farm and she died on 3.7.2006. It has also come on record that after the death of Harbans Kaur, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 (Ex.P.16) and (Ex.P17) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, a Succession Certificate in favour of the plaintiff-respondent has been issued on the basis of registered will dated 18.8.2003 to recover the debts including the suit amount. Both the courts have concurrently found that vide cheque No.216881 dated 24.12.2003, an amount of Rs.1,85,283/- was paid by defendant-appellant to Modern Auto Mobile, Ambala for purchase of a car to be given to his daughter in marriage. Similarly, the defendant- appellant has withdrawn an amount of Rs.3,14,700/- from his account by way of cheque No.216882 dated 24.12.2003 and thus out of Rs.5,00,000/-, the defendant-appellant has used the amount of Rs.4,99,983/- (Rs.1,85,283/- + Rs.3,14,700/-) and thereafter closed his bank account on 22.5.2004, which clearly proves that it is the defendant-appellant, who has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the wife of plaintiff-respondent and not vice versa. In view of the above, it is apparently clear that the findings recorded by the both the courts below are perfectly legal and justified being on the basis of sufficient evidence. Moreover, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is purely on the basis of facts, which have been appreciated by both the courts below while recording concurrent RSA.No.4208 of 2011(O&M) #4# findings against the appellant and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, which is the sine qua non for exercising the jurisdiction by this Court under the provisions of Section 100 CPC Keeping in view of the above discussion, I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below warranting interference. Dismissed. October 21, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE