R.S.A. No. 687 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 687 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.07.2009 Bhagwan Singh son of Jung Singh son of Uttam Singh, r/o village Nandgarh Kotra, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through Power of Attorney holder Gurmail Singh son of Bhagwan Singh. ... Appellant Versus Raj Kumar son of Chiman Lal, r/o Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Injderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 04.01.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Phul, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for recovery, and the judgement and decree dated 16.04.2008, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, relevant for the decision of this appeal, are that, on 03.02.2003, the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, from the plaintiff/respondent, and agreed to pay interest @ Rs. 2% per month. It was further stated that, in lieu of the loan, R.S.A. No. 687 of 2009 2 the defendant/appellant, executed the pronote and receipt, whereupon, he signed and put his thumb impression, in the presence of the witnesses. The defendant/appellant, was many a time asked, to repay the borrowed amount alongwith interest, but to no avail. On the final refusal of the defendant/appellant, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed. 3. The defendant/appellant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, was not within limitation. It was further pleaded that, no cause of action, accrued to the plaintiff/respondent, to file the present suit. It was stated that the pronote and receipt, were forged and fabricated documents. It was further stated that the defendant/appellant, used to visit the Commission Agent shop of the plaintiff/respondent, for selling the crop, and at the time of selling the same, the plaintiff/respondent, used to obtain his signatures, as also his thumb impressions, on some papers, saying that, the same were required, to be submitted to the Sales Tax Department, with regard to the sale of crop. It was further stated that the plaintiff/respondent, took the advantage of illiteracy of the defendant/appellant. The remaining averments were denied. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery including interest as prayed for? OPP ii) Whether suit of the plaintiff is not filed within limitation? OPD iii) Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD iv) Whether the alleged per note and receipt are R.S.A. No. 687 of 2009 3 forged and fabricated documents? OPD v) Whether the defendant is entitled to special Courts, as prayed for? OPD vi) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, for recovery. 6 Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgement and decree dated 16.04.2008. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that, the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, from the plaintiff/respondent, and executed the pronote and receipt dated 03.02.2003, agreeing to pay the same with interest. He further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent, failed to prove, that he had financial capacity, to pay the said amount, to the defendant/appellant, on 03.02.2003. He further submitted that above the thumb impression, stated to be of the defendant/appellant, on the pronote, his name, was not written. He further submitted that, thus, the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, in my considered R.S.A. No. 687 of 2009 4 opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Shashi Pal, an attesting witness of the receipt P2, appeared, as PW2, and deposed, that the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, from the plaintiff/respondent, and executed the pronote P1 and receipt P2, on 03.02.2003. He also stated that the defendant/appellant, agreed to pay the amount with interest @ 2% per month. Raj Kumar, PW1, appeared, as his own witness, in the witness box, and also made statement, in consonance with the statement of Shashi Pal, PW2. No doubt, Bhagwan Singh, defendant/appellant, when appeared, as DW1, denied the execution of pronote and receipt. His bald statement, in the face of cogent and convincing evidence, produced by the plaintiff/respondent, was of no avail, to disprove the execution, validity, and legality of the pronote and receipt. Once the execution of pronote stood proved, the statutory presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, could be drawn, R.S.A. No. 687 of 2009 5 that the same, was for valid consideration. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, on 03.02.2003, from the plaintiff/respondent, and executed the pronote P1 and receipt exhibit P2, in his favour, agreeing to pay the same with interest; that the pronote, was for valid consideration; that the defendant/appellant, failed to prove, that the pronote and receipt, were the result of fraud; and that the plaintiff/respondent, was entitled to the recovery of the amount with interest, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffer from no illegality, or perversity, and warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, being without merit, must fail, and same stands rejected. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. 11. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 23.07.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE