An appeal against a decree for recovery of Rs. 3.5 lacs. The court upheld the lower court's findings against claims of tampering in a receipt. Interest was reduced from 12% to 9% p.a. The appeal was dismissed.
Interest reduced to 9% p.a.; appeal dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No. 632 of 2007 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 632 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 24, 2009
Kulwinder Singh
...... Appellant
Versus
Rajbir Singh
....... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the respondent.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.3.5 lacs on the basis of pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. The following questions have been proposed:-
iii)Whether the judgment and decree which is totally perverse
RSA No. 632 of 2007 (O&M)
2
and based on conjectures and surmises can be allowed to sustain?
iv)Whether the judgment and decree which is result of misreading and non-reading of important evidence can be allowed to sustain?
All the issues are actually related and are questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the entire evidence. He has particularly referred to the alleged change in the date at the foot of the receipt and has argued that actually the receipt was executed on 14.5.2000 but the last '0' has been changed into '2' so as to extend the limitation and that tampering is clear to the naked eye. However, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the third line of the receipt the date has been correctly mentioned as 14.5.2002. He has argued that even if there is any change at the foot of the receipt the same is contemporaneous.
In this view of the matter I have not been persuaded to hold that the findings of the court below are either based on no evidence or on such a misreading of the evidence that the said findings can be rendered to be perverse.
Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, urged that interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is excessive. In my opinion it would be in the interest of justice if the interest is reduced to 9% p.a.
With this modification this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
July 24, 2009 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit for recovery can be decreed on a promissory note and receipt when execution and consideration are not proved?
Whether interest at 12% p.a. is excessive in this case?
Whether the lower court's findings were based on conjecture or misreading of evidence?
Kulwinder Singh
Rajbir Singh
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
