R.S.A.No. 2483 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2483 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 20, 2009 Duli Chand ---Appellant versus Samunder Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Vikram Sheoran,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Samunder Singh had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 43,705/-. Additional Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Loharu vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed. by Additional District Judge-III-Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.2009.Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, in paras2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 43,705/- before the learned lower court R.S.A.No. 2483 of 2009(O&M) -2- alleging therein that the defendant purchased Sarson(mustard seeds) worth Rs. 30,205/- from him. The defendant agreed to pay the sale price within a month. It was agreed that in case he failed to pay the said amount within stipulated period, he would pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum. In this regard, he also executed a writing dated 2.09.2002, as collateral security by appending his signatures to the revenue stamp of Rs 1/-. However, the defendant has not adhered with the terms and conditions and has not paid the aforesaid amount with interest despite of repeated requests. Even serving of registered legal notice dated 17.1.2004 through counsel Sh. M.S.Chaudhary, is also of no avail. Hence, necessity arose to file the present suit for recovery of Rs. 43,705/-, which includes Rs. 30,205/- as principle and remaining Rs. 13,500/- as interest calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from 4.9.2001 to 10.2.2004 and also for pendent elite interest form the day of filing the suit till realization. 3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement, wherein, certain preliminary objections are taken viz. That the suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit; that the plaintiff has no locus standi; that the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit and has concealed the true and material facts from the court. On merits, it is pleaded that no amount is outstanding towards him. He never agreed to pay Rs. 30,205/- to plaintiff nor he ever executed any writing on dated R.S.A.No. 2483 of 2009(O&M) -3- 2.9.2002, as alleged. Rather the same if any in possession of the plaintiff is false and frivolous document. The allegations of convening pachayat and executing the writing dated 2.9.2002 are totally false and frivolous. The reaming allegations of the plaintiff are denied categorically and a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)whether the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 30,205/- to the plaintiff as a sale price of mustard seeds on executing a writing dated 2.9.2002? OPP (2)If issue No. 1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff whether the defendant is liable to pay aforesaid amount to the plaintiff with interest, if so at what rate? OPP (3)Whether the alleged deed dated 2.9.2002 is result of fraud and fabrication? OPP (4)Whether the suit is based on false and frivolous grounds? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the court? OPD (6)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of writing dated 2.9.2002(Ex. P-1) executed by the defendant whereby he had admitted the fact that he owed Rs. 30,205/- to the plaintiff. Plaintiff, in R.S.A.No. 2483 of 2009(O&M) -4- order to prove his case himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and examined PW-1 Lalit Kumar, Scribe of the writing in dispute, PW-3 Deepak Jain, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert. PW-3 after examining and comparing the questioned signatures of the defendant on Ex. P-1 with his standard signatures gave his report that the questioned signatures and the standard signatures were of the same person. Plaintiff as well as scribe proved the due execution of the writing (Ex. P-1) in Panchayat. Appellant- defendant on the other hand has denied the execution of the writing Ex. P- 1. In his written statement, appellant has averred that “if any writing is with the plaintiff, the same is false and frivolous and not in the knowledge of the defendant”. In this regard issue No. 3 was framed as to whether alleged deed dated 2.9.2002 was a result of fraud and fabrication. However, the appellant failed to establish that writing in question was a result of fraud and fabrication. Moreover, from the written statement filed by the appellant, it is evident that the parties were having dealing regarding the sale of mustard seeds and had good relation with each other. Hence, it cannot be said that there was no occasion for the appellant to have executed the writing Ex. P-1. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 20, 2009 PARAMJIT