Regular Second Appeal No. 1885 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 1885 of 2011 Date of Decision: 4.8.2011 Davinder Kumar …Appellant Versus Vishal Bhardwaj …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present regular second appeal has been instituted by the defendant to the suit. The only grievance made by Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, appearing for Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, is that both the Courts below have gravely erred in not giving preference to the testimony of appellant/defendant-Davinder Kumar as DW.1 over the deposition of plaintiff-Vishal Bhardwaj as PW.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no corroboration was available to the testimony of plaintiff as PW.1 and thus, both the Courts below should have discarded his testimony by giving credence to the testimony of appellant/defendant Davinder Kumar, who appeared as DW.1. To appreciate this argument, it will be necessary to give brief Regular Second Appeal No. 1885 of 2011 2 facts of the case. The plaint has been annexed with this appeal as Annexure A1 and a perusal whereof reveals that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of ` 1,85,000 as principal and ` 10,830 as interest, total of which comes to ` 1,95,830. It was stated by the plaintiff/respondent that the defendant had approached him for advancing a loan of ` 1,85,000 as he was in need of money. The said loan was given to the defendant by way of a cheque bearing No. 236151 drawn on State Bank of India, Tarn Taran. The said cheque was drawn on 17.2.2007 from the account of the plaintiff and the same was deposited by the defendant in his bank account at Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, G.T. Road, Tarn Taran and the cheque was encashed. Upon notice, the defendant had caused appearance and had filed written statement. Mr. Salathia has also shown me a copy of the amended written statement. In the preliminary objection, the defendant had taken a definite stand that the plaintiff had taken a friendly loan of ` 1,85,000 from him for the purpose of marriage of his sister in the month of August 2006 with a promise to return the same within a period of three months. It is further stated that after the lapse of three months, when the defendant approached the plaintiff to demand the loan amount, the plaintiff had issued the cheque in question. Thus, from perusal of written statement, it is apparent that issuance of a cheque and its encashment has not been disputed. Both the Cours below had two versions before it i.e. version of plaintiff spelt in the plaint and his evidence as PW.1 that the cheque was issued as a loan on one hand and on the other hand, version of the Regular Second Appeal No. 1885 of 2011 3 defendant in written statement and his testimony as DW.1. Both the Courts below after taking the fact, in view, that issuance of a cheque and its encashment has not been disputed, considered it as a corroborative piece of evidence and lent credence to the testimony of plaintiff as PW.1. Both the Courts below held the plaintiff to be a reliable witness. This Court, in regular second appeal, will not tread on the path of re- appreciation and do re-appraisal of the evidence to hold that evidence of the defendant is more trustworthy as Mr. Salathia has canvassed. The argument raised being totally in the realm of appreciation of evidence, this Court, in regular second appeal, shall refrain to examine the same. No question of law, much less a substantial one, has been agitated before me which may warrant interference of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 4, 2011 “DK”