^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE GHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR FfRSTAPPEALNO. / 2005 Appellant ^(Defendant) '-^ »•••", ^y^ '^-""" I^lspondent /'--—-—• /s ^^ .^^^' ^&ffff^'^' 'Sardar Sohan Singh Saluja S/o Late Mehtab Singh Saluja, Aged about 65 years, R/o Near New Telephorie ExehaBge, Iti front of Mansukh Lal Petrol Pump, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus - : . '~- 'GurucKaFan Kaur, W/a Ajit Singh Chawla, Aged about 50 year, R/o Baldev Bagh, RgLJnandgaon. FIRST APPEAL U/S960ETHE,CODEQF CIVIL PROGEDURE HIGH^@yR1'^E^HH10FiiS©^^ SinoleBenGlt:l^n'Ble^hR^ ^K»^ffasfaanN^UH'Kir;BSishKt ffirsKiHBeEU No.TSafaoOS ^^(. Wsrsus QuruCharaRJKaur l^ (3i3i^lEiNBrl 1: i,W PostftM-t 6-07-261Q; ':){;? Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge l»a •r"^ "^ r' ^ ,1iS;/ iSM :!1 'N.r'U^X^j" ^N ^l^^lt^l^^^ '^^s^^':.^i.MKS^^^i^^ ' ^S:^SSE^'^^SK:111^^'£1' aEii \^i/0 HIGH CQURT QF CHHATnSGARH AT BiLASPUR .731 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Versus Sardar Sohan Singh Sa!uj; Guruchara" Kaur Shri Adhiraj Surana, counsel for the appeHant. Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent. FiRST.APPEALUNDERSECTiOMSeOF.THE JUDGMENT J^ .07.2010) f Heard. (2) Thte is defsndant's appea! under Section 96 of C.P.C. Ghaitengir the judgment anc! decree passed by the trial Court directing the appellsnVdefeRdant to pay Rs.59,500,'- to respondenVpiaintiff v/ith interest @ 6% psr annum frotn the of filing ofthe suit (111 its payment. i?^?ir^^ <£i& ^l^VS i S^^r^il ^ (3) The piaiRtiff/respondsnt has filed a cross obj enhancement ofthe sf interest from 6% to 9%. (4) The plaintiTffrsspondent preferred a suit for rewvery of amount Rs.59,500/- on the pleading that at the request of defendant the plaintiff granted loan of Rs.45,000/- on 08-09-1^4 and 09-09-1994 and executed, premissory note for Rs.12,000/- on 08-09-1994 and for Rs.12,000/-, Rs.11 ,WOi- and Rs.10,000/- on 09-09-1994. The defendant to iay rate of interest @ 2% per month. On the ptaiRtiff's the defendant issued a cheque of Rs.45,00)/- in favour of the plaintiff but ths check was dishonoured and later on the plaintiff did not repay the -2.- u\ ^, in spite of repeated request. The plaintiff thereafter sent a whlch was ignored by the defendant and thereafter instant suit was fited. The plaintiff ateo by amending the plaint that the defendant has executed actaiowledgement at a subsequent of time sn of of the toan received by him. (5) The defendant, in his written statemsnt, denied the piaint altegation and stated that he has rsot taken any Joan Trom the ptaintiff. He has denied execution of the promissory note and further that the altegedly issued by the defendant was forged and simiiariy it was that the defendant has nevsr executed any acknov/ledgement in favour of the plaintiff. AaiorcSlng to the defsndant piaintiffs husband has got hvo other suits the defendant i" his own name and in the of his son. Alt these proceedings have been initiated to harass the defendant and to create confusion. He submitted thst the suit is fmotous and suit be dismissed. (6) !n course of tria! ths ptaintiff examined her husband (attomey hotder) as PW/2 and one Siddharth Ghintamani Mandawkar as (PW/1 ). The defendant examined himself as DWrt and sfrangeiy he produced ths plalntiff hereslf as his wttness gs DW/2. (7) The triai Court framed four issues for determination and has hel< that the plaintiff has proved her case of advancing losn of Rs.45,(XX)/- to the defendant which the defendant has falted to repay. (8) The tria! Court has consldered and discussed the entire evidence. Slnce the defendant has denied his signature on the promissory 1 \. }?./ '•^,.'^-''/: -3>- i-v P^R fn ?"v P^R ^risH ar-l?'nr»iArij&rlnE^?¥ss>rit F-v P^ L»,A.'t !^S ^^ —^.i S\J Cit S^4 CS^/r^ iV^'rffGWM^l i15Sl )<> S-.A..S to PH'? ths trial f.r^i irf' t^ttif&r^ 1H& ffitrtnsifur^ r^f fh& rl^ifetnrl^nf ^_^lLnh Hfe harl sft?^^r^H®i '^E^f^ii ^, i,S3!il^5U ^ti^; ^i^.il iSi^Ui ^ Vi It i% SA^ulS«iis^SSi ii, VySljvrlii i i% S SKd^ Si^^f^i BS^^3S his specimen signature at the tlme of opening an account wfth iank, which has been proved by the Bank Officer R.W1 and concluded that both the signatures are simslar. The trlat Court held that since ^ha nlsintiff as denied his signature on promissory nots and acknowledgement it was his burden to have examined hand writing expert and prove forgery. Thus the trial Court he!d thst grant of on the basis of promissory note have proved by the piaintiff. The triat t t% sste-n- fr>i inrt thssf th& N&f^r^H?anf hisri i'ssi isrl fH^ rlH©nije fni t-i? •Cif^i^ iVUSi^uj ^tilKS. ^i IC 'bi'Ci^iS^SSiifc S tCSiwt S^S-iSU^S'U it l^- ^fS t'erf^^S'E; sc^i Rs.45,000/- in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.P/3, which dishonoured. it is the observation of the trial Court that if the defendant has not any toan why should. he issue ths cheque Ex.P/3 in favour of ths from hls own account and that it has not properly expiainsd as to h' cheaue of his passbook of the sams re p'aii S'rf^Sl Et. '^T t|a r^lSlHTil *i i.51^; yiiau?tiii> (9) ( have heard learned counsel for the and ths documentary as we!S as orat evidence available on record. Ex.Prt is the account opening form 23-04-1980 by the defendant. Ex.P'; is the cheque issued by the in favour of the plaintiff for an .amount of Rs.45,000/- which was dishonoured by the Bank. Ex.P/4, Ex.P/5 to P/8 are ths promjssory note and Ex.P/9 to Ex.P/12 are the acKnowledgements. Ex.P/17 te a claim petition preferred by th lefendant under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in the Court of A.cc.'dent Ctaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon on 19-04-1999 which contains hss signatures. His signature is a!.so avaitebte on P/18 which is ^ ^." ^ —4- application preferred by the defsndant before the Tahsildsr Nazut, Rajnandgaon on 20-08-1975. Ex.P/19 ss an application signed by 10-09-1975 presented before the Tahsildar. On i3USSH ^i of the documents containins his admftted signatures and the signature of the defendant on the promissory note and acknowledgement it would cleariy appear that the signatures are identical, therefore the finding to this effect recorded by the tria! Court does not appaar to be perverse. (10) in view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the findings recorded by the triat Gourt that the defendant had obtained 'oan of Rs.45,OQO/- from the plainttff and has to repay the same is out from proper appreciation of the evidence avgitable on record. (11) . Learned counset for the appeitant submits that the plalntiff has not entered in the witness box to prove her and that she has examinet her attomey holder as PW2, therefore the suit shoutd have been dismissed on this ground atone. Learned counssi has relied upon the of Vs. Ltd. >nd reported in f9 SCC 217. I* ^e frs iis fhat fn fh^i %sh K ss isu's ^sis^ ui s.i*s? S^SIE judgment the Hon'bte Supreme Court has iaid down the !aw that the agent can not depose in place of the principte, howevsr in the present the plaintlff has been on by the defendant >,setf as his witness as DWi'2 and the plaintiff, as CW/2.Gurucharan alf ?£s hi" Kaur has clearty in her statement that the defendant had taken toan of Rs.45,000/- from her. Thus, the 'acuna or defeet In the of the ptaintiff subsequently made good' though at the of the defendant. Thus the judgment rendered by the Hon'bie Supreme Court sn •\ /c"~'i "^ i1^^ '<Y. . :-^"/ / ^ 5- the case of Janfs Vasftdeo BhQ/wsni and anoffisr Vs. Sndiisind Ltd. athers (supra) wouid not be appiicable m the fact of the case. (12) The respondenVpiaintiff has fited a cross objection to the effect that the t"a! shouid havs allowed Interest @ 9% per annum instead of 6%, nowever looking to the current rate of interest ordinarily al'owed by ths Courts under Section 34 of C.P.C. the grant of interest @ 6% appears to be just and proper. The ieamed triaS Court has not committed any error by awardlng interest @ 6% per annum in v.ew qf the provssioRS containaj m Section 34 of C.P.G. The cross objection is therefors dismissed. (13) In view of above, this Court does not find any error or ill^atity in the judgment and decree passed by the tria! Court. The is affirmed. The appea! preferred by the appellant as we!i as the cross objectlors preferred by the respondent are dismissed. (14S No order as to costs. /<1£^^ A f4sri^r<sia H& rlrsiv^jn-iir^ ^tf^f^^ff^^f^^f ^ i ^ > f~^ U^'i^i %% S^\? idii t5s¥ii~U^ %^^Vi \A!t't t^ijf' • Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge I^