REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1047 OF 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1047 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 4 th MARCH, 2011 Darshan Singh .... Appellant Versus Baldev Singh .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.2935-C of 2011 Although reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit are, strictly speaking, not sufficient to condone the long delay of 202 days in filing the appeal, yet adopting liberal approach, the said delay is condoned. The application is stands allowed. Main Appeal: Defendant Darshan Singh having lost in both the courts below in second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Baldev Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.3,30,000/- alleging that defendant on 05.06.2000 borrowed Rs.2,05,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to replay the same with interest @ 2 % per annum and executed pronote and receipt for the same, but the defendant did not repay the principal amount or the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1047 OF 2011(O&M) -2- interest thereon. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed Rs.2,05,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,25,000/- as interest thereon till filing the suit. Defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant alleged that he never had any dealing with the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that parties are not even known to each other. According to the defendant, he had dealings with commission agent Kamaljit Singh who during the course of the dealing used to obtain signatures of defendant on blank pronote papers and stamp papers etc. When dispute arose between defendant and said Kamaljit Singh, the latter threatened to harass the former on the basis of said blank signed papers. Defendant filed a suit against the said Kamaljit Singh Proprietor of M/s. Kamal Trading Company. Compromise was effected between them and in view thereof, Kamaljit Singh affirmed affidavit dated 27.05.2002 admitting having blank signed pronotes and receipts and agreement and agreed to return the same to the defendant but did not do so. The impugned pronote and receipt might have been prepared by said Kamaljit Singh in connivance with the plaintiff. The defendant had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any pronote. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.3,30,000/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum. First appeal preferred by defendant has been disposed of by learned District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 07.05.2010 by modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest for pre-suit period @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of pronote-cum-receipt till filing of the suit and REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1047 OF 2011(O&M) -3- pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove his case. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and stated according to his own version. Sandeep Kumar PW-2 is attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt in question and has proved the same by deposing according to plaintiff's version. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into witness box as DW-1 and broadly stated according to his own version. However, less said the better about his testimony. The Defendant has taken self- contradictory stand. The defendant came up with the plea that his signatures had been obtained on blank pronote-cum-receipts by Kamaljit Singh, who prepared the impugned pronote-cum-receipt in connivance with the plaintiff. However, at the same time, the defendant denied his signatures on the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. This denial makes the version of defendant completely unreliable. If Kamaljit Singh had obtained defendant's signatures on blank pronote-cum-receipts and Kamaljit Singh in connivance with plaintiff prepared the impugned pronote-cum-receipt, how the defendant could say that signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt were not his signatures. Conversely if impugned pronote-cum-receipt did not bear signatures of the defendant, then what is the relevance of the plea taken by the defendant that Kamaljit Singh had obtained his signatures on blank pronote-cum-receipts. Moreover, Kamaljit Singh has not been REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1047 OF 2011(O&M) -4- examined as witness by the defendant. Kamaljit Singh was said to have affirmed affidavit dated 27.05.2002 Exhibit D-1, which was sought to be proved by examining Amarjit Singh DW-2. However Kamaljit Singh himself, who affirmed the said affidavit, has not been examined. The Oath Commissioner who attested the said affidavit has also not been examined. Moreover the said affidavit was said to be result of compromise effected in the suit which had been instituted by Darshan Singh defendant herein against Kamaljit Singh, but no document of the said suit has been placed on record in the instant case. Thus examined from any angle, defendant's version has been rightly discarded. On the other hand, defendant's plea of his signatures on blank pronote-cum-receipts implies that the impugned pronote-cum-receipt bear his signatures. Alleged affidavit Exhibit D-1 of Kamaljit Singh has also been found to unreliable for detailed reasons recorded in paragraph 20 of the judgment of the trial court. In the written statement as well as in the witness box, defendant has taken contradictory stand regarding his signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt. On the one hand, he impliedly admitted his signatures thereon by pleading blank signed pronote-cum-receipts obtained by Kamaljit Singh. On the other hand, defendant denied his signatures on impugned pronote-cum-receipt. Moreover, if compromise had been effected between defendant and Kamaljit Singh, there is no reason why the alleged blank signed pronote- cum-receipts and stamp papers were taken back by the defendant from Kamaljit Singh at the same time. It may be added that Amarjit Singh DW-2 is closely related to the defendant. Moreover Amarjit Singh DW-2 in cross- examination could not deny that defendant had borrowed money from the plaintiff and rather expressed ignorance about it. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1047 OF 2011(O&M) -5- In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in concurrent finding of the courts below. The said finding is justified by the evidence on record and cogent reasons recorded by the courts below. The said finding, therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding is not shown to be based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence. The trial court had awarded interest @ 2% per month for pre-suit period as claimed by the plaintiff, which was excessive, but the same has been moderated by the lower appellate court by reducing it to 12% per annum only. Pendente lite interest @ 6 % per annum awarded by the courts below may rather be said to be inadequate and in any case not excessive. Future interest @ 6% per annum is in consonance with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure . There is thus no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 4th March, 2011 'raj'