R.S.A. No. 4163 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4163 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 6, 2011 Jai Karan …..Appellant Vs. Rattan Lal …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff- respondent for recovery of ` 88160/- has been decreed by the Courts below, holding that the appellant had obtained a loan of ` 2,67,956/- on various dates between June 5, 1997 to April 22, 1998 and that the plaintiff- respondent is entitled to recover ` 88160/- on account of loan payment as part of the dues alongwith interest besides holding that the bills Exs.P-12 to P-15 relied upon by the plaintiff- respondent are not the result of collusion with Ram Parshad. R.S.A. No. 4163 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Counsel for the defendant- appellant has vehemently contended that in the bills Exs. P-12 to P-15, there is no signatures of the defendant- appellant and that the signatures of Ram Parshad appear on the said bills indicating that it would have been the liability of Ram Parshad. I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. It has been held as a finding of fact that the defendant- appellant is liable to pay the decretal amount. I have4 considered the contention of counsel for the appellant that it would be Ram Parshad who could be said to be liable to pay the money against the bills Exs.P-12 to P-15. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below indicate that Ram Parshad appeared as a witness for the plaintiff and stated that he had accompanied the defendant at the time of purchase of the cloth and that he signed on behalf of the defendant being his relation and worker of the defendant. No law point is involved in the present regular second appeal. No ground is made out for interference in the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court. Dismissed. However, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below will not prejudice the rights of the defendant- appellant to subsequently claim the amount from Ram Parshad subject to the law of limitation and “the evidence” that the material had been received against Exs.P-12 to P-15 by Ram Parshad on behalf of the appellant. R.S.A. No. 4163 of 2010 (O&M) [3] January 6, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE