R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11. 2009 Karamjit Singh ......Appellant Versus Harbhajan Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Singla,Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Harbhajan Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,58,000/- and the same was dismissed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Malkerkotla vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.2006. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.2007 and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- with costs. Hence, the present appeal by R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Briefly stated, plaintiff Harbhajan Singh had filed suit in the lower Court for the recovery of Rs.2,58,000/- which included Rs.1,50,000/- as the principal amount and Rs.1,08,000/- as interest therein at the rate of 2% per annum, with the averments that on 24.9.1998 defendant Karamjit Singh borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him and agreed to pay back the same along with interest at the rate of 2% per month on demand and at the time of borrowing the amount, the defendant had also executed pronote and receipt in his favour and the receipt was also attested by the marginal witnesses. But the defendant has not returned any amount either the principal amount or interest thereon, so the present suit. 3. On notice, the defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff denying that he ever borrowed any amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.9.1998 or that he ever executed any pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on the said date, but in fact he had executed pronote and receipt dated 4.9.1998 for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff had made additions R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) 3 and alterations in the date of pronote and receipt, on the basis of which the plaintiff has filed the present suit against him. It was also peladed that the original pronote and receipt was dated 4.9.1998 and the plaintiff has made an alteration in the pronote and receipt and has converted the figure '04', to '24' and in the notice issued by Sh. Gurmukh Singh Tiwana, Advocate, dated 28.8.2001 on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant, the date of the pronote and receipt has been clearly mentioned as '04.9.1998' and a period of two days has been given in the said notice dated 28.8.2001 as the limitation of the pronote was to expire on 30.9.2001. It was further alleged that the plaintiff has intentionally altered the date of the pronote and receipt so as to bring the suit within limitation and it is a material alteration and for taking action against the plaintiff, he will be submitting an application at the appropriate time. The other averments of the plaint were also denied and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendant executed pronote and receipt dated 24.9.1998? OPP R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) 4 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has made material alteration in the date of pronote and receipt? OPD 4. Relief.” The substantial questions of law that arise in this case are “whether the learned Additional District Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and decree, had erred in ignoring the material alteration regarding the date in the pronote and receipt and had ignored the material evidence on record? And “Whether the material alteration in the pronote and receipt had rendered the document to be inadmissible in evidence being un-reliable. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery basing his claim on the pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. The case of the plaintiff is that the pronote and receipt were executed on 4.9.1998. Thereafter the date was materially altered from 4.9.1998 to 24.9.1998 to bring the suit within the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that, in fact, the pronote and receipt in question had been executed on 24.9.1998. In fact, there had been no alteration in the pronote and receipt. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) 5 A perusal of the pronote and receipt reveals that there is a material alteration with regard to the date. Figure '2' in front of '4' appears to be materially altered even to the naked eye. Both the sides, in order to establish as to whether the date on the pronote and receipt had been altered or not, have examined handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has given his report in favour of the party, who had engaged him. Even by ignoring the reports of the handwriting expert, there is sufficient material on record to suggest that the date on the pronote and receipt has been materially altered with a view to bring the suit within the period of limitation. In case the dates of the pronote and receipt were 4.9.1998 then the suit, which was filed on 22.9.2001 was barred by limitation. However, in case the dates of the pronote and receipt are 24.9.1998 then the suit filed by the plaintiff on 22.9.2001 comes within the period of limitation. The material document, which had been ignored by the learned Additional District Judge is Ex.D-13. The said notice was sent by the plaintiff through his counsel to the appellant. In the said notice, the date of pronote is mentioned as 4.9.1998. The plea taken by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that, in fact, two pronotes had been executed is without any basis as a photocopy or the original of the pronote and receipt, which were alleged to have been executed on 4.9.1998, has not been proved on record. In these circumstances, Ex.D-13 can be taken to have been issued qua the R.S.A.No. 124 of 2008 (O&M) 6 pronote and receipt in question. Hence, a perusal of pronote and receipt in question and Ex.D-13 reveals that the pronote and receipt had been materially altered to bring the suit within the period of limitation. Learned Additional District Judge had, thus, erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of materially altered pronote and receipt, while ignoring the material evidence on record. Hence, the substantial question of law that arises in this appeal stands answered accordingly. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are upheld and the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2009 anita