Dismissed

Ishwar Singh v. Mukesh @ Pataso

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2012CR/2172/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the lower court's order granting leave to defend a suit for recovery. The Court noted the petitioner's advanced age but rejected the argument that the denial of signature validity was a false plea at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the grant of leave to defend was dismissed; the court directed the lower court to expedite the trial.

Ishwar Singh Vs Mukesh @ Pataso — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 2172 of 2012 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Revision No. 2172 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.5.2012

Ishwar Singh

.. Petitioner

Mukesh @ Pataso

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶12

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.2.2012, passed by the learned court below, whereby the respondentdefendant has been granted leave to defend in a suit filed by the petitioner under Order 37 CPC for recovery of ` 1,75,000/- along with interest.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents produced on record by the petitioner clearly established that the respondentdefendant had signed the pronote while raising loan. The denial in the application filed for leave to defend is just to prolong the litigation. The story projected that on account of her not adhering to the advice by the petitioner to engage a counsel of his choice for prosecuting a case for claim in a motor vehicular accident on account of death of son of the respondent, a false suit has been filed, is not correct. He further submitted that in case some dispute was raised regarding signatures, the same could be ascertained by this court at this stage only without granting leave to defend.

¶14

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The petitioner herein is 87 years of age. He is resident of village Kiloi Khas, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The respondent-defendant, who is a widow, is residing in Rohtak city. As to

¶15

Civil Revision No. 2172 of 2012 [2]

¶16

what was the relation between the parties and the purpose for which the loan was advanced by a person of 87 years of age, living in a village, to a widow living in the city is also not borne out from the record. The defence raised by the respondent that the pronote is forged as it is not containing her signatures cannot be said to be a false plea if considered at the stage of grant of leave to defend. The learned court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

¶17

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶18

However, still considering the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff herein is 87 years of age, the learned court below shall expedite the trial of the case.

¶19

( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge

¶20

1.5.2012 mk

Ishwar Singh v. Mukesh @ Pataso

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh v. Mukesh @ Pataso

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

Manjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Boota Singh and Ors.

Tek Chand & Ors. Vs Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors.

Manraj Singh Brar Vs Veerpal Kaur

St. of Hry. Vs Rakma etc.

State of Haryana Vs Bhalla

State of Haryana Vs Ronki and Ors.