IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3478 of 2007 Date of decision: 31st October, 2008 Sukhwinder Kaur and another … Appellants Versus Krishan Kumar … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rajesh Girdhar, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Krishan Kumar son of Pyare Lal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Prabh Dayal Krishan Kumar, Kacha Artia Shop No. 134, New Grain Market, Muktsar, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1.00 lac along with interest against Sukhwinder Kaur wd/o Inderjit Singh and Navpreet Singh minor son of Inderjit Singh. It was stated in the suit that on 1st July, 1997, Inderjit Singh took a loan of Rs.1.00 lac from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Interest @ 2 percent per month w.e.f. 1st September, 1997 was also demanded. Inderjit Singh had died, leaving his widow and minor son, who were arrayed as defendant No.1 and 2 respectively to the suit, being his legal heirs. Notice of the suit was issued. Defendants appeared. They took preliminary objections that the pronote and the receipt are forged and fabricated documents. The suit is time barred and is not maintainable and no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff. It was further stated that in the year 1994, Inderjit Singh stopped selling his agricultural produce at the shop of the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no question of his raising a loan of Rs.1.00 lac on 1st July, 1997. Replication was filed, in which averments made in the written statement were denied and that of the suit were Regular Second Appeal No. 3478 of 2007 reiterated. The trial Court had drawn the issues. Respondent-plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1. He also examined Surinder Kumar attesting witness PW-2 and Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert PW-3. Appellant-defendant Sukhwinder Kaur herself appeared as DW-1. Amarjit Singh, Advocate was examined as DW-2, Harminder Singh as DW-3 and Mohinder Nath Sharma as DW-4. Both the parties had examined the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and they had given their reports, which were in variance with each other. The trial Court found it safe not to rely upon the testimony of any Expert. Taking into consideration the pronote (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2), the testimony of Suridner Kumar PW-2 attesting witness, the suit was decreed. The Court further held that it had applied intrinsic test and himself examined the documents and found the same not to be forged or fabricated. Aggrieved against the order of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the present appellants. Before the appellate Court, two arguments were raised. Firstly, that the stamps on the pronote and the receipt have been crossed later and therefore, the document is fabricated. Secondly, that the plaintiff was a moneylender, therefore, he has not been maintaining the accounts properly. Both these arguments have been dealt with by the appellate Court below. Relying upon Mrs. K.Sudersanam v. Venkatarao, AIR 1963 Andhara Pradesh 442 and other case law cited, appellate Court found no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the two courts below and they have held that the pronote (Ex.P-1) and the receipt (Ex.P-2) were validly executed by Inderjit Singh, husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2. It has also been held that liability of the appellants shall only be confined to the estate inherited by them from deceased Inderjit Singh. 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 3478 of 2007 Mr. J.S. Brar appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to the concluding portion of para No.11 of the judgment of the appellate Court, wherein it has been held as under: “So, this fact clearly shows that in this case the account has not been correctly maintained. So, the provisions of Section 3(a) of the above said Act were not complied with. Consequently, as per Section 4(b) of the Act, the interest amount and costs are to be disallowed. In the above discussed circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to interest and costs of the suit. The decree of the trial Court stands modified accordingly.” Mr. Brar has stated that having held that respondent-plaintiff is not entitled to interest and cost, a grave error has been committed by the appellate Court to award pendentelite interest @ 12 percent p.a. and future interest from the date of decree till the realization of the decretal amount @ 6 percent p.a. I have also heard Mr.Rajesh Girdhar, counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. He is unable to explain that once the appellate Court had given a finding that plaintiff is not entitled to interest and cost of suit, how the interest @ 12 percent p.a. has been awarded. Accordingly, decree and judgment of the appellate Court is modified to the extent that plaintiff will not be entitled to pendentelite interest @ 12 percent p.a. and costs. However, he shall be entitled to recovery of Rs.1.00 lac with interest @ 6 percent p.a. from the date of decree till realization of the decretal amount. With these modifications in the order of appellate Court below, present appeal is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 31, 2008 rps 3