This judgment dismisses an appeal against a decree dismissing a plaintiff's suit for recovery of a loan. The High Court held that since no pleading was filed disputing the evidence of repayment, the appellate court could not consider extraneous evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
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.3989 of 2010(O & M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3989 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:11.10.2010
Mohinder Singh
.....appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Singh
.....respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh,Advocate for the appellant
********
RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL):
This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for recovery of ` 1,35,000/- along with interest, was dismissed.
Before the trial Court, the appellant had set up a case that defendant borrowed a sum of ` 1 lac from him and agreed to repay the same at the rate of 12% per annum and in lieu of that he executed a pronote and receipt in his favour. It was further the case of the appellant that no repayment was made, therefore necessity arose to file the present suit.
The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent stating that he had already returned the loan amount along with interest to the plaintiff vide receipt dated 23.04.2004 issued by the plaintiff in his favour.
No replication was filed by the appellant to controvert the averments made in the written statement by the respondent.
RSA No.3989 of 2010(O & M)
2
Both the courts below on the basis of the evidence on record recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to recover any amount as the repayment by the defendantrespondent stood proved vide receipt dated 23.04.2004(Ex.D-18).
Still not satisfied, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant appeal before this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below.
The plaintiff in the present case has sought the recovery of ` 1,35,000/- along with interest on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 01.07.2003. The defendant has admitted the execution of the pronote and receipt and the admitted his signatures over the same. The defendant took the plea in the written statement that on 23.04.2004 the defendant returned the total loan amount along with interest to the plaintiff and when the defendant demanded the original pronote and receipt from the plaintiff then the plaintiff told that the original pronote and receipt has been misplaced from him and receipt dated 23.04.2004 was issued in favour of the defendant regarding receipt of the total loan amount and the receipt. No such replication was ever filed by the plaintiff to rebut the allegations made by the defendant in the written statement.
It is well settled law that the evidence beyond pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. Here, in the present case, there is no such plea of the plaintiff on the file that the signatures of the plaintiff have been misused by the defendant and the receipt has been typed on the preexisting signatures. In the absence of any such pleadings, no amount of evidence can be taken into consideration. In this regard, the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bachhaj Nahar versus Nilima Mandal & anr. 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 141 (SC) wherein it has been held that no amount of evidence on a plea that is not put forward and
RSA No.3989 of 2010(O & M)
3
the pleadings can be looked into to grant any relief.
Here, in the present case, there is no rebuttal to the allegations of the defendant that the receipt dated 23.04.2004 was not issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. Though, execution of the alleged receipt Ex.D-18 has been denied by the appellant yet his signatures on the aforesaid receipt have been proved. It was for the appellant to explain as to how and under what circumstances his signatures have come on the aforesaid receipt if he had not executed the same. There is not an iota of evidence to prove the aforesaid circumstances.
In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
11.10.2010 neenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether evidence beyond pleadings can be taken into consideration for granting relief in a civil suit.
Whether the appellant failed to rebut the allegations regarding the execution of the receipt admitting repayment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nilima Mandal & anrReferred¶25
Bachhaj Nahar versus Nilima Mandal & anr. 2009(2) Civil Court Cases 141 (SC)
Mohinder Singh
Kuldeep Singh
Raksh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
