R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 02, 2011 Surinder Singh .... Appellant Vs. Kaur Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Hem Raj Kapil, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Surinder Singh, who was successful in the trial court, but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. Kaur Singh – plaintiff-respondent filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.6,80,000/- alleging that on 21.04.2002, defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1% per month, but did not repay principal or interest amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as principal amount along with Rs.1,80,000/- R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 2 as interest amount. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. He denied having borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff or having executed the impugned pronote and receipt. The defendant alleged that there are material alterations in the pronote as the loan amount in words and in figures and the rate of interest were written later on with different ink. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is Commission Agent and the defendant wanted to sell his crop at his shop. The plaintiff, on the pretext that list of customers had to be prepared for presentation before Food and Supplies Department, obtained signatures of the defendant on pronote and receipt. In the written statement, the defendant also pleaded that he was to recover the price of his crop from the plaintiff, who refused to pay the same. The impugned pronote and receipt are without consideration. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 03.09.2010, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 and thereby, plaintiff's suit has been decreed for recovery of principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum since the date of loan till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined scribe of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt and also one attesting witness thereof. All of them have broadly stated according to the plaintiff's version. On the other hand, the defendant, while appearing in the witness box, broadly stated according to his own version. The defendant also examined official of Market Committee, who stated about sale of produce by plaintiff at the shop of M/s Milkhi Ram Dev Raj, whereas the defendant pleaded that he had been selling his produce at the shop of plaintiff under the name and style of M/s Satpal Ruldu Ram. The defendant also examined Clerk of the Court to produce record of other suit relating to another pronote allegedly scribed by the same scribe Nirmal Singh (PW-2). Inderjit Singh – handwriting expert examined by the defendant opined that the two pronotes i.e. impugned pronote of the present suit and other pronote by Mukhtiar Singh involved in the other suit have been written by two different persons. Plaintiff's case has been supported by scribe and attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt. Moreover, the defendant, in the written statement as well as in the witness box, admitted his signatures on the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. This admission further strengthens the plaintiff's case. Explanation given by the defendant for affixing the said R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 4 signatures is patently unacceptable. The defendant alleged that he had to sell his crop at the shop of plaintiff being run under the name and style of M/s Satpal Ruldu Ram, and therefore, the plaintiff obtained defendant's signatures on the impugned pronote-cum-receipt on the pretext that the list of customers had to be prepared. However, it has come in defendant's own evidence that defendant sold his produce at the shop of M/s Milkhi Ram Dev Raj and not at the plaintiff's shop M/s Satpal Ruldu Ram. Moreover, even if the defendant had to sell his crop at the shop of plaintiff, even then the defendant, without borrowing any amount from the plaintiff, would not have affixed his signatures on pronote-cum-receipt knowing fully well the implications thereof. The defendant would not have affixed his signatures on pronote and receipt on the pretext that list of customers had to be prepared by the plaintiff. Signatures of customers on pronote-cum-receipt would not be required for preparing list of customers. Thus, examined from any angle, the defendant's version is completely unacceptable, whereas the plaintiff has proved due execution of pronote-cum-receipt and payment of consideration to the defendant by examining scribe and one attesting witness, in addition to his own testimony. Learned counsel for the appellant very emphatically and repeatedly argued that amount in the pronote and rate of interest have been written in different ink, and therefore, the pronote-cum-receipt is a doubtful document. Reliance in support of this contention is placed on judgment of R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 5 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Antony vs. K. G. Raghavan Nair reported as 2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments 481 (S.C.). I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted. In the case of C. Antony (supra), there were many suspicious circumstances in addition to the fact that different ink was used in body and signature of the cheque. In the instant case, however, there is no other suspicious circumstance. On the contrary, writing of amount and rate of interest with different ink in the impugned pronote has been explained by the scribe Nirmal Singh (PW-2). He has deposed that the amount was filled after the money was received by the defendant and after he counted the same. The explanation is quite satisfactory. At the risk of repetition, it has to be highlighted that the defendant's version, that he signed blank pronote-cum-receipt at the asking of plaintiff, is wholly unacceptable. Moreover, if it had been so, the pronote-cum-receipt, if filled in later on, would have been filled with same ink and not with different ink in different parts of the pronote. Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has also been rightly relied on by lower appellate court to decree the plaintiff's suit. Said provision is reproduced hereunder :- “20. Inchoate stamped instruments – where one person signs and delivers to R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 6 another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in [India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.” This provision thus negatives the defendant's plea regarding the pronote-cum-receipt being blank, when he signed it. Even if it was so, even then the defendant would be liable to pay the suit amount because he delivered the pronote-cum-receipt duly stamped and signed giving authority R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011 7 to the holder thereof to make or complete it. The defendant had no link with the plaintiff as farmer and Commission Agent. It has come in defendant's own evidence that he sold his crop at the shop of different Commission Agent and not at the shop of plaintiff. Consequently, defendant's version that he signed blank pronote- cum-receipt at the asking of plaintiff becomes completely unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that pronote by Mukhtiar Singh and the impugned pronote have been written by two different persons and not by the same scribe Nirmal Singh. However, this contention does not help the appellant in any manner. Even otherwise, Nirmal Singh was cross-examined regarding pronote scribed by him, but he was not confronted with the pronote allegedly executed by Mukhtiar Singh regarding which Inderjit Singh – handwriting expert has given his opinion. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The finding recorded by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. May 02, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE