C.R. No. 339 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 339 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.2.2010 Surajpartap Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Manish Prabhaker, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 1288-CII of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, delay of 64 days in filing the revision is allowed. C.R. No. 339 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide which suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff / petitioner was dismissed. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) with interest @ 12% P.M. from the date of receipt of said amount by the defendant till payment. The suit was filed on the plea, that the plaintiff is an employee of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, whereas respondent is also working on daily wages with the same University. The plaintiff / petitioner C.R. No. 339 of 2010 2 claimed, that a friendly loan was advanced to her against pronote and receipt, which was duly witnessed by the witnesses. The defendant contested the suit, and filed the written statement taking preliminary objection that the Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. The pronote was said to be forged and fabricated document having no value in the eye of law. The pronote was said to be not signed or executed by the defendant and further that no receipt was executed by her. The other objections were also taken. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. However, on appeal the learned lower appellate Court accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by recording the following finding:- 17. From the discussion made above and after going through the evidence led by both the parties, the pronote Ex.P3 is not executed in accordance with law, further execution of the receipt remains unproved. When the receipt is without the signatures of Manjit Kaur then it is a waste paper. So further documents relied upon by plaintiff notice, postal receipt etc. are not helpful to the plaintiff for the decretal of suit. The Lower Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree has not perused the due execution of pronote and execution of the receipt. When execution of both the documents remains unproved then the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed. The Lower Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, has erroneously come to the conclusion. Accordingly, C.R. No. 339 of 2010 3 the findings recorded by learned Lower Court are hereby set aside and reversed.” Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as under :- “102. No second appeal in certain cases.- No second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.” As second appeal has been specifically barred, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Lower appellate Court. Prima facie revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked, to overcome the statutory bar under a statute which bars further appeal. The legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to bring a litigation to an end with regard to the suit, the jurisdictional value of which is less than twenty-five thousand rupees. The statutory bar, therefore, cannot be overcome by resorting to the revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise it has not been proved that the receipt was signed by the defendant / respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the pronote and receipt in the same document, therefore, the signatures of the defendant / respondent on the pronote were sufficient to conclude that the amount was paid to her, even though the receipt was not signed by her. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The pronote is proof of transaction whereas receipt is the basic document which prove the actual payment of money to the party. Pronote in absence of receipt showing transaction, does not prove the passing of consideration, C.R. No. 339 of 2010 4 specifically when receipt though signed by witness is not signed by borrower. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, was right in holding, that consideration was not proved to succeed in the suit. The alone pronote could not be used to fasten the liability on the defendant / respondent. No merit. Dismissed. 23.2.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE