RSA No.3043 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3043 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 01.11.2010. Tarlok Singh .....Appellant Versus Randhir Chlotra and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.S. S. Khaira, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant No.1-Tarlok Singh has filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Court below. Respondent No.1-plaintiff-Randhir Chalotra filed suit against the appellant and his wife and son (defendant Nos.2 and 3/proforma respondent Nos.2 and 3) for recovery of Rs.1,93,000/- alleging that defendant No.2 retired as teacher. The defendants claimed to be having influence in the Education Department. The defendants allured the plaintiff saying that they would get admission for plaintiff's sister in Bachelor of Education Course. On this promise, the defendants received Rs.1,25,000/- from the plaintiff i.e Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque dated 03.02.2000 and Rs.25,000/- vide another cheque. However, the defendants did not get the plaintiff's sister admitted in B.Ed. course nor refunded the aforesaid amount. The plaintiff accordingly claimed Rs.1,25,000/- as principal amount and Rs.68,000/- as interest till the filing of the suit. Only defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit, whereas RSA No.3043 of 2010 (O & M) -2- defendant No.3 was proceeded ex parte. Defendants No.1 and 2 controverted the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that plaintiff's father is residing in Holland for the last 20 years and is permanent resident of that country. Plaintiff's uncle Raghubir Chander along with his family resides with the plaintiff. Their family is also known to defendant No.2 as daughters of Rahubir Chander and also sisters of plaintiff had studied in the school where defendant No.2 was teacher. Plaintiff and his uncle and aunt represented to defendant Nos.1 and 2 that they would send their son defendant No.3 to Holland. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1 and 2 paid Rs.5,00,000/- from time to time to Raghubir Chander and his wife Neelam Kumari. However, defendant No.3 was not sent to Holland. Plaintiff gave cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.25000/- to defendant No.1 as repayment of part amount out of Rs.5,00,000/-. Defendants are entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. Defendant No.1 also lodged FIR dated 30.08.2004 against the plaintiff's relatives, who are facing trial. Various other pleas were also raised. Plaint averments were controverted. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 16.09.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of cheque till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 2 has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 only has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and RSA No.3043 of 2010 (O & M) -3- perused the case file. Receipt of amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by defendants from plaintiff through two cheques as alleged by the plaintiff, is not disputed even by the defendants. However, the defendants alleged that the said amount was paid by plaintiff to defendants as repayment of part amount out of Rs.5,00,000/- alleged to have been paid by the defendants to plaintiff's uncle and aunt. The defendants have, however, miserably failed to prove their said version. There is only sole self-serving bald oral statement of Tarlok Singh-defendant No.1 in support of the said version, in addition to FIR and chargesheet got proved by examining Ahlmad of the Court. However, in the said FIR lodged by defendant No.1, plaintiff is not even an accused. Only plaintiff's uncle and aunt are facing trial in that case. The plaintiff paid the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the defendants and is, therefore, entitled to recover the same. Defendants have failed to prove that they had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to plaintiff's uncle and aunt. No document in this regard has been produced in evidence by defendants to prove payment of said amount to plaintiff's uncle and aunt. Moreover, defendants have not taken steps to seek recovery of the alleged balance amount of Rs.3,75,000/- from the plaintiff or his uncle and aunt. There is also no averment regarding different dates and amounts allegedly paid by defendants to plaintiff's uncle and aunt. Sole self-serving statement of defendant No.1 is not sufficient to prove the version of the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff has, thus, been rightly decreed by the Courts below because payment of Rs.1,25,000/- by the plaintiff to defendants stands admitted as well as stands proved. RSA No.3043 of 2010 (O & M) -4- Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff has failed to prove that his sister has passed MA examination as pleaded by him. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has stated that his sister has passed MA examination. The plaintiff was not supposed to produce the degree or certificate of MA of his sister because the same was not very material to prove the plaintiff's case. The material fact was advancing of Rs.1,25,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants. This fact stands proved. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below against the defendants. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons recorded by both the Courts below. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 01.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE