Dismissed

Bant Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2010RSA/2690/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against concurrent judgments decreeing a recovery suit based on a promissory note, the High Court rejected the appellant's claim that a zero was wrongly added to the principal amount. Upholding the lower courts' findings as not based on no evidence, the Single Judge dismissed the appeal and the stay application.

What did the court decide?

This appeal as well as the application for stay is dismissed.

Bant Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

RSA No. 2690 of 2008(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No. 2690 of 2008 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision: January 14 , 2010

Bant Singh

...... Appellant

Versus

Mukhtiar Singh

...... Respondent

¶11

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari

¶12

Present: Mr.PKS Phookla, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Sherry K.Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

Ajay Tewari, J.

¶19

This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.1 lac plus interest on the basis of a pronote.

¶20

The case of the appellant before the trial court was that he had obtained a loan of only Rs.10,000/- and not of Rs.1 lac and that one zero had been added subsequently. The courts below countered this argument by pointing out that the amount was written not only in figures but in words also and thus it could not have been a case of subsequent addition of one zero.

¶21

RSA No. 2690 of 2008(O&M)

¶22

¶23

The following questions have been proposed:-

¶24

i) Whether the alleged pronote and receipt dated 30.5.2005 are defective?

¶25

ii)Whether the execution of pronote and receipt and passing of consideration are not proved as per law or not?

¶26

iii)Whether the source of consideration has been proved or not?

¶27

It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of both the Courts recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC.

¶28

Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the

¶29

appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed.

¶30

(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE

¶31

January 14 , 2010 sunita

Bant Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bant Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dariya Vs Balwan and Ors.

Kirpal Singh and Anr. Vs Virender Singh

Lakshmi Chand and Others Vs Ganga Devi and Others

Dilbagh Singh Vs Milkha Singh and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ujagar Singh Vs Daljity Singh and Ors.