IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 2867-C of 2009 and RSA No. 3946 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.3.2009 Mohinder Pal … Appellant Versus Jaspal Singh … Respondent Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 2867-C of 2009: For the cause shown in the application, the order dated 4.2.2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, is hereby recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. On the request of counsel for the appellant, the appeal is taken up for hearing. RSA No. 3946 of 2008: The present regular second appeal is directed by the plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for recovery has been dismissed. Plaintiff, Mohinder Pal, brought the present suit alleging that defendant Jaspal Singh, with whom he was having good relations, took a loan of Rs.60,000/- from him in December, 2003, on account of marriage of his sister. On 20.12.2003, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was advanced to the defendant on interest at the rate of 2 per cent per month while the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was to carry 5 per cent per month interest. It was agreed between them that the defendant would pay a sum of Rs.1800/- per month as interest to the plaintiff. The said loan was to be returned by the defendant within two years of its advancement. At the time of advancement of aforesaid loan amounts, the transactions were reduced into writing upon which defendant appended his signatures. Thereafter, defendant paid interest of Rs.1800/- to the plaintiff for the months of January and February, 2004 RSA No. 3946 of 2008 -2- but thereafter he defaulted and rather moved some applications before the police. Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff. Upon notice of the suit, defendant filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff regarding advancement of any loan to him. He while admitting that he and plaintiff were good friends, stated that since he was under depression being a drug addict, his parents wanted him to avoid the company of the plaintiff but he did not pay any heed to it. During that period, the plaintiff obtained his signatures on some blank papers on the pretext of filing an application with the police against his(defendant’s) parents who were against their friendship. Later, the plaintiff converted the said blank-signed papers into affidavits etc. It was stated that in December, 2004, plaintiff conveyed a Panchayat but there his claim regarding lending money was found false. Trial Court disbelieved the claim put forth by the plaintiff and vide judgment and decree 30.10.2006 dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, but that too was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties, have disbelieved the affidavits/writings, Exhibits P- 1 and P-2, produced by the plaintiff. Exhibit P-1 was found having no date as to when the same was scribed, that too not scribed by any competent person, and the stamp paper on which the same was scribed, was found to have been purchased on 22.12.2003 whereas writing Exhibit P-2 is alleged to have been made on 20.12.2003. Besides this, the writing Exhibit P-2, having two leaves, does not depict any signatures of defendant Jaspal Singh on the first leaf but were appended on its back at three places whereas the second leaf bears his signatures at two places. Thus, it has been held that the signatures of defendant Jaspal Singh were obtained thereon firstly and the writing in question was made thereafter since the matter so incorporated therein has been repeatedly mentioned so as to fill up the blank space. Further, the said document has not been found to have been got typed by defendant Jaspal Singh himself because had he done so, he would not have got written himself as Jaspal Singh and would have used word ‘him’. The advancement of loan of Rs. 60,000/- has been disbelieved also on the RSA No. 3946 of 2008 -3- ground that there was no explanation was forthcoming as to why the amount of Rs.20,000/- was advanced at the rate of 5 per cent per month interest whereas the amount of Rs.40,000/- was advanced at the rate of 2 per cent per month interest, particularly when both the amounts were advanced on the same day. It has thus, been held that the documents, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 are full of contradictions and are in fact not loan documents but had been scribed with some ulterior motive and therefore, in absence of any tangible or concrete evidence regarding advancement of loan, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed for. 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. March 23, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE