RSA No.3969 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3969 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.12.2011 Harnarayan Singh ...Appellant Vs. Hardev Singh .....Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- Present: Mr.R.N.Singal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent. --- A.N.Jindal, J. A suit preferred by the plaintiff/appellant (herein referred as the plaintiff) for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/-, as principal along with interest , was decreed by the trial court on 10.2.2009. The appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred as the defendant), was accepted and the suit was dismissed. As such the plaintiff has come up in appeal. The basis of the suit filed by the plaintiff is promissory note and receipt dated 22.5.2003, whereas the defendant has set up the plea in his written statement that he had paid a sum of RSA No.3969 of 2009 2 Rs.3,32,700/- to the plaintiff on 30.12.2003. But he was not returned the promissory note and receipt even despite demand and it was projected that the same had been misplaced, however, a receipt was issued by the plaintiff in his favour. Replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant has repaid the amount to the plaintiff vide receipt No.12 dated 30.12.2003 if so, its effect? OPD 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover sum of Rs.4,05,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 22.5.2003? If so, to what extent and what rate of interest? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated, without consideration? OPD 5. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, whereas the appellate court reversed the judgment. The prime questions to be determined in the case are “whether the receipt Ex.D.1 is a genuine document, and whether the defendant had returned the money received by him under the promissory note and receipt?” RSA No.3969 of 2009 3 The defendant appears to have been able to prove the execution of the receipt and return of the loan under the said receipt, The receipt is on the printed form bearing Sr.No.12, on which the name of the defendant, his father's name and amount of Rs.3,30,000/- is written in words as having been received by the plaintiff and Rs.2700/- is also shown as outstanding against the defendant over the receipt. The receipt bears the signatures of the plaintiff. The defendant has denied his signatures on the receipt but the same have been duly proved by Shri V.B.Bhatnagar, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, Sunam while appearing as DW4. Not only this, the defendant has proved this receipt by examining two other witnesses namely Sukhwinder Singh DW 1 and Tehal Singh DW 2. Though the plaintiff has tried to falsify the receipt by examining Shri Anil Kumar Gupta Finger Prints Expert who has deposed that the disputed signatures of the plaintiff on the receipt do not tally with the standard signatures made by the plaintiff on the plaint, power of attorney and replication. That apart the plaintiff has tired to take support of the deposition of Tehal Singh (DW 2) who has also proved payment and issuance of receipt by the plaintiff. However, while pointing out a story from his testimony to the effect that payment was not made in his presence but receipt was written in his presence. It was urged that the receipt is not proved according to law. On scrutiny of the statement of Tahal Singh, it could be traced that he could not deny the issuance of receipt by the plaintiff. As such this part of his cross- examination does not discredit his statement. The plaintiff was not RSA No.3969 of 2009 4 supposed to issue receipt without consideration. Now coming to the opinion of the expert, the plaintiff as well as the defendant both examined rival experts yet the court had the opportunity to see the disputed signature as well as the standard signatures of the plaintiff to compare and after examining both the signatures the court with its third eye reached the conclusion that the standard signatures tally with the disputed signature of the plaintiff on Ex.D.1. Para No.12 of the judgment of lower appellate court is relevant which is reproduced as under:- “12. Faced with this situation, this Court itself compared the disputed signature of the plaintiff on the plaint, affidavit accompanying the plaint and power of attorney produced by the plaintiff. These three documents came into existence before the defendant could put in appearance and plead the receipt. The comparison shows that the disputed signature on the receipt Mark/D.1 are with ink pen, whereas the standard signature are with ball pen. The comparison shows that disputed as well as standard signature are written in free flow. Out of the word 'Har Narain' word “Har” is separate from “Narain”. Letters “I” and “N” have been mixed in both the disputed and standard signature. In word “Singh” the manner of writing “S” and adjoining “I” is almost same. Thereafter “n” is almost missing and the manner of writing “g and “h” is also similar. The manner of receipt also shows that it is RSA No.3969 of 2009 5 written by some money lender where the principal, interest and total sum is mentioned and the balance is also mentioned. The Total sum of Rs.3,30,000/- is also mentioned. Receipt has the serial number, which indicates that it is issued by some one, who has the receipt book. Therefore, the possibility of fabrication, is otherwise reduced. Therefore, after comparison, I am of the view that the disputed signature on the receipt and the standard signature on the plaint, affidavit accompanying the plaint and power of attorney, are of one and the same person.” Even otherwise, this court has also examined the disputed signature on the receipt Ex.D.1 and compared the same with the standard signatures on the plaint, replication and power of attorney and same were found to be identical. Thus, the receipt Ex.D.1 with regard to return of money stands duly proved. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is bound to fail. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this court. Resultantly this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 13.12.2011 Judge rp