R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.01.2010 Ramesh Prashad Mamgain ....Appellant Versus Smt. Bhuvneshwari and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009, passed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents for recovery, stands partly decreed. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit for recovery of Rs.94,000/- (Rupees ninety four thousand only) as principal, and a sum of Rs.32,430/- (Rupees thirty two thousand four hundred and thirty only) as interest @ 12%, on the basis of settlement dated 14.9.1997, as calculated upto 31.7.2000 with future interest. The case set up by the plaintiff/respondents was, that friendly loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) was advanced to the defendant/appellant in July, 1997, however, he failed to return the loan. It was also the case of the plaintiff/respondents that appellant was employed in the Tele-Communication Department, and was in construction business with plaintiff's son, namely Suresh Parshad. The dispute had arisen between plaintiff's son and the defendant in these transactions. The case of the plaintiff/respondents further was, that R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2009 (O&M) -2- dispute of transaction was settled and a settlement deed was recorded, which was duly signed by the defendant/appellant. Suit was contested by the defendant/appellant, wherein plea was taken, that the plaintiff never advanced any loan to the defendant, nor he was legally authorised to advance the loan. However, the appellant admitted, that he was employed in the Tele Communication Department. He denied any contract between the plaintiff's son Suresh Prashad and the defendant/appellant. It was, however, admitted that the parties belonged to the same village i.e. Musangon (Jiwala) Post Office Dangchaura Tehrif. The learned lower appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, accepted the version of the plaintiff/respondents and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.34,000/- (Rupees thirty four thousand only) with interest, as Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) was adjusted out of the amount settled between the parties, as it was found payable by son of plaintiff in business transactions. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is outcome of misreading of evidence and, therefore, perverse and liable to be set aside?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that besides the plaintiff, only Vinod Kumar appeared as PW4, who was the son of the plaintiff, therefore, there was no reason for the learned Court to have accepted the version given by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the original settlement deed was not placed on record, as only photocopy of R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2009 (O&M) -3- the settlement deed was placed. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant further is, that the appellant had denied his signatures on the settlement deed in the written statement, therefore, in absence of the document having been proved, it was not open to the learned lower appellate Court to have taken the said document into consideration to pass decree in the suit. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not in dispute, that the learned lower appellate Court positively recorded, that though initially photocopy was exhibited, thereafter original settlement deed was placed on record. There is a positive evidence by the plaintiff, which is supported by Vinod Kumar, his son, to prove the settlement entered into between the parties. The learned lower appellate Court, therefore, on appreciation of evidence, has accepted the version, which cannot be said to be misreading of evidence, or perverse. This Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot reappraise the evidence, to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned lower appellate Court. The reading of the judgment, does not show that the findings are perverse or outcome of misreading of evidence, as contended. The substantial question of law raised does not arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) January 18, 2010 Judge R.S.