RSA No. 3484 of 2006 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 3484 of 2006 Date of decision: November 25,2008 Mangal Ram ..Appellant. Versus Roshan Lal ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. O.P.Gaba, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant's second challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.54000/- (i.e., Rs.36000/- as principal amount and Rs. 18000/- as interest) has been decreed with future interest at the rate of 6 % per annum on the principal amount of Rs.36000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.54000/- against the appellant/defendant(i.e., Rs.36000/- as principal amount and Rs. 18000/- as interest @ 2 % per month) on the averment that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.36000/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998 and executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in consideration thereof agreeing to pay the said amount on demand @ 2 % p.m. The plaintiff requested the defendant to make payment of loan amount along with interest and also presented him pronote and receipt for return of the said loan amount along with interest but the defendant refused to pay the said amount along with interest which has necessitated in filing the present suit. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement inter alia submitting therein that he has neither executed the pronote and receipt nor he has received Rs. 36000/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998. The pronote and RSA No. 3484 of 2006 2 receipt were alleged to be forged and fabricated documents. All other allegations were denied and admittedly of the suit was prayed for. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 2.11.2001 by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendant borrowed a loan of Rs. 36000/- from the plaintiff on 16.6.1998 and executed pronote and receipt for this loan ? OPP 2. Whether the defendant agreed to pay an interest at the rate of 2 % per month ?OPP 3.Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated ?OPP 4. Relief. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent holding that the plaintiff-respondent proved the execution of the pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex. P2 before the trial Court. However, the defendant-appellant was not able to lead any evidence direct or circumstantial to prove that he neither executed the said document nor received the loan amount. No evidence was produced by the defendant-appellant to prove issue No.3 that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the District Judge held that the plea of the appellant defendant that the document was forged and fabricated is not proved on record. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently that the judgment and decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside as the appellant had denied his signatures on the promissory note and receipt and he RSA No. 3484 of 2006 3 had requested the trial Court by filing the application that his signatures may kindly be got compared from the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court illegally and he had challenged the said order of the trial Court by filing Civil Revision No.631 of 2005 in this Court and the revision petition was still pending in this Court when the trial Court decreed the suit without waiting for the decision of this Court on his revision petition. It has been further argued by the counsel for the appellant that even the lower Appellate Court has not considered this fact and dismissed his appeal. In spite of the fact that the appellant had specifically raised this issue before the lower Appellate Court. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decrees of the courts below and has argued that the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that plaintiff-respondent has proved execution of the pronote and receipt in question whereas the appellant has failed to prove that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated. Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that the appellant has not produced any order of this court passed in Civil Revision No.631 of 2005 stating the proceedings before the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find no force in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. In this case, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that he had applied to the trial Court for getting his signatures compared from a Government Hand Writing Expert and this plea was turned down without any justification and it was his right to get his signatures compared to prove his assertion that the pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in declining his prayer. However, there is nothing on record of the courts below to support the plea of the appellant. The appellant has not placed on record any facts to show that the application for RSA No. 3484 of 2006 4 proving his signatures from the Government Hand Writing Expert was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant was specifically asked by this Court to produce the record of the revision petition, even then it was not produced. Even the learned counsel for the appellant was neither able to give the date of the order of the trial Court rejecting his application for comparing his signatures from the Government Hand Writing Expert nor the learned counsel was able to given the date of filing of the revision petition in this Court. He even was not able to produce order of revision petition. He only stated that the said revision petition was dismissed as infructuous on 4.4.2006 by this Court. He was unable to show under what circumstances it was dismissed as infructuous. The record of Civil Revision No.631 of 2005 titled as Mangal Ram Versus Roshan Lal was called from the record room of the High Court and it was found that the said Civil Revision was filed by the appellant Mangal Ram against the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ferozepur on his application for sending the original pronote to the Director,Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison the said order is reproduced as under:- “ Present: Counsel for the parties. Heard. An application has been made by the defendant for sending the original pronote and receipt in dispute along with specific signatures of Mangal Ram defendant to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparison. This application has been contested and denied that signatures of defendant on the receipt and pronote are forged and fabricated as alleged. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Perusal of the file reveals that case was fixed for evidence of the defendant and the defendant is at liberty to get the signatures of Mangal Ram compared from any Hand Writing Finger Print Expert. As such, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. RSA No. 3484 of 2006 5 To come up on 17.3.2005 for evidence of the defendant at own responsibility. Announced. Sd/- 14.12.2004 CJ(JD),Ferozepur” This Civil Revision was filed on 28.1.2005 and notice of motion was issued for 21.2.2005 for final disposal vide order dated 31.1.2005. Only dasti process was ordered. Thereafter, the case came up on 4.4.2006 and on that date, the counsel for the petitioner(now appellant) withdrew the revision petition. Order dated 4.4.2006 is reproduced as under:- “Present: Shri N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present revision petition. Allowed as prayed for. Dismissed as withdrawn. 04.04.2006 Sd/- Hemant Gupta JUDGE” From perusal of the above said orders, it is crystal clear that firstly the appellant himself has not pressed the revision petition before this Court and secondly, vide order dated 14.12.2004, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur has categorically stated that the case is fixed for evidence of the defendant and the defendant is at liberty to get his signatures compared from any Hand Writing Finger Print Expert, thus it was for the appellant himself to prove his case. It may also be pointed out here that admittedly Civil Revision No.631 of 2005 was decided on 4.4.2006 whereas the first appeal was decided by the District Judge on 21.4.2006 and the order was known to the appellant. The appellant has also not placed on record any facts with regard to the fact that when his evidence was closed by the trial Court and when he has moved this application. In any case, the burden of proof to prove that the alleged pronote and receipt are fabricated and forged documents was upon the appellant and it was for him to lead evidence to prove this assertion. He has failed to lead any RSA No. 3484 of 2006 6 evidence in this regard. Thus the plea raised by the appellant that his application was dismissed without any justification and the lower Appellate Court has not discussed this point in the judgment is without any force. The judgment cited by the learned counsel in the case of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur Versus Malkiat Singh etc. 1987(1) All India Land Laws Reporter -342 is not applicable on the facts of the case. The plaintiff having discharged his initial burden by proving the documents. It was for the defendant to prove his plea that the document was forged and fabricated and the defendant having failed to discharge his burden. The courts below ere right in passing the impugned decree. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 25, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE