IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3066 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.9.2011 The Guhla Primary Co-op. Land Dev. Bank Cheeka through its Branch Manager … Appellant Versus Gurdayal Singh … Respondent Present: Mr. Vijay S. Kajla, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Learned counsel for the defendant-bank in this appeal has vehemently laid stress on two issues; firstly, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and secondly, both the Courts below have wrongly held that the plaintiff had not taken any loan. On going through the judgments of both the Courts below, I am of the view that both the questions raised in this appeal were not tenable because it has been concurrently held that the mortgage-deeds dated 20.2.1998, 26.2.1998 and 27.2.1998 and 9.2.1998, Exhibits P-54 to P- 57 do not bear the thumb-impressions of the plaintiff and therefore, it was a case of impersonation and fraud and hence, the mortgage-deeds were forged. The defendant-bank in order to prove that the mortgage-deeds were not forged or fabricated, brought into witness-box only DW-1, namely, Ramesh Kumar, Clerk, who was not present at the time of the execution of the mortgage-deeds. No other evidence was produced by the defendant- bank. In my view, both the Courts below in absence of any cogent evidence have rightly held that the mortgage-deeds were forged and fabricated documents and theefore, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. So far as the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit is concerned, both the Courts below have rightly held that there is no bar under the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, for bringing such suit before the Civil Court and Section 102 of the Act ibid RSA No. 3066 of 2010 -2- provides for specific type of cases where jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The present suit does not fall within the purview of Section 102 of the Act ibid and therefore, the suit has rightly been held to be maintainable. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. September 30, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE