RSA No.3280 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3280 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 17.4.2009 Nishan Singh ......Appellant Versus M/s Satguru Trading Company ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Chaman Lal Patialvi, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.80,000/- as principal amount with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 21.8.2002 and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal amount from the date of decision of the suit till realization, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant- appellant on the averments that on 21.8.2002, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff for his domestic needs, which was duly entered in the account books. The defendant also thumb marked the said entry in the account books of the plaintiff on receiving the amount of Rs.80,000/-. Harjit Singh real son of the defendant also signed the aforesaid entry in the account books. The defendant failed to return the amount which necessitated the filing of the present suit. The defendant-appellant contested the suit by filing written statement. Apart from raising preliminary objections, it was stated that the RSA No.3280 of 2008(O&M) 2 defendant and his son both had borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- on 21.8.2002 and the defendant was selling his agricultural produce through his son Harjit Singh at the shop of the plaintiff and all the accounts were in the name of Harjit Singh. Since the defendant was not paid the full amount for their agricultural produce sold in the year 2001-2002, Harjit Singh son of the defendant, had filed a suit on 18.9.2009 against the plaintiff at Samana which was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.10.2002 as the compromise had taken place between Harjit Singh and Dharam Pal. Dharam Pal gave pending amount due against the defendant for agricultural produce and gave clearance certificate on 1.10.2002 to the defendant after the settlement. It was further averred that the defendant and his son Harjit Singh returned the borrowed money to the plaintiff on 1.10.2002 in the presence of witnesses and the plaintiff issued the clearance certificate to the defendant and thus, nothing was due against the defendant-appellant. Remaining averments were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. After pursuing the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with proportionate costs as stated above. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment and decree dated 14.1.2008. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove its case as no independent witness was produced to corroborate the account books except the plaintiff. RSA No.3280 of 2008(O&M) 3 It was further argued by the learned counsel that the Courts below have misread the evidence on record as a compromise had taken place between the parties and the plaintiff-respondent had issued a clearance certificate in favour of Harjit Singh son of the appellant and in view of this, the suit filed by Harjit Singh against the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed as withdrawn. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this material evidence has been ignored by the Courts below which has resulted into perverse findings in the judgment and decrees of the Courts below and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit. The borrowing of Rs.80,000/- on 21.8.2002 by the appellant is not in dispute. The stand taken by the appellant is that another suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the son of the appellant in which the settlement had taken place on 1.10.2002 giving Harjit Singh clearance chit on the basis of which the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed as withdrawn and thus, all the accounts between the parties were settled and nothing remained to be paid by the appellants. The onus was on the defendant to prove that they had returned the amount. The reliance of the appellant upon clearance certificate Ex.D-1 is misconceived. In this clearance certificate, it is clearly written that account with Harjit Singh is settled. There is no mention of the payment of borrowed amount of Rs.80,000/- in this clearance certificate. No other material evidence could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant from which it can be made out that the appellant returned the borrowed amount of Rs.80,000 to the plaintiff-respondent. Thus, I find no fault in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. RSA No.3280 of 2008(O&M) 4 No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. April 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3280 of 2008(O&M) 5