Dismissed

(O&M) Pyare Lal v. Mehtab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2012RSA/1187/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,080/- based on a bahi entry, the Single Judge dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the findings of the first appellate court regarding the doubtful execution and lack of evidence were purely factual and did not raise any substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; earlier decree upheld.

(O&M) Pyare Lal Vs Mehtab — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.1187 of 1992

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1187 of 1992 Date of decision:- 17.04.2012

Pyare Lal

....Appellant

Vs.

Mehtab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶11

Present: None.

¶12

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶13

Plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4080/- i.e. Rs.3000/- as principal and Rs.1080/as interest, was dismissed in the first appeal.

¶14

Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount alleging that the defendant borrowed the said amount for purchasing buffalo and in proof thereof executed a bahi entry. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the same by accepting the appeal holding that execution of Ex.P1 is not proved. The learned first Appellate Court found that as per the testimony of PW-1 Pyare Lal, the writing Ex.P1 is in the hands of two persons i.e. Jagdish, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, who has written two lines and the remaining by Dhoop Singh, whereas PW-2 Parbhu Ram, who is son of Dhoop Singh, deposed that the entire writing is in the hands of Dhoop Singh. The learned first Appellate Court also found that from the deposition of PW-1 Pyare Lal, it is apparent that PW-2 Parbhu Ram was not acquainted with the writing of Dhoop Singh. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove that who scribed Ex.P1. The

¶15

RSA No.1187 of 1992

¶16

¶17

learned first Appellate Court has also found that from the testimony of PW1 Pyare Lal, it is apparent that Tasbir Singh and Randhir Singh were present at the time of execution of Ex.P1, but such witnesses have not been examined. The learned first Appellate Court also found that though PW-5 Satwant Puri, Document Expert, has deposed that the signatures on Ex.P1 are that of the defendant, but admitted that spellings differ on the disputed as well as on other documents. The first Appellate Court compared the signatures on Ex.P1 and the samples writings and returned a finding that the report of the Expert appears to be doubtful. The Court concluded particularly when neither the scribe nor the persons present at the time of the writing of Ex.P1 have been examined, to return a finding of fact that the writing Ex P-1 is not proved to be executed.

¶18

The evidence of PW-1 Pyare Lal has been examined thoroughly by the learned first Appellate Court to return a finding that the execution of b ahi entry Ex.P1 is not proved, as the plaintiff has failed to prove as to who scribed Ex.P1. The persons present at the time of such writing have not been examined. Even from the perusal with naked eye, the learned first Appellate Court reached to the conclusion that the Expert's report is doubtful.

¶19

The learned first Appellate Court has recorded pure findings of fact on the basis of evidence led by the parties. The said findings of fact do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in second appeal.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶22

17.04.2012 Vimal

(O&M) Pyare Lal v. Mehtab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Pyare Lal v. Mehtab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Emm Enn Associates Vs Union of India and Anr.

Smt. Trishna Kaundal Vs State of Punjab

(O&M) Jit Singh Vs Bikram Singh and Ors.

Girdhari Lal Thapar Vs Longowal Traders etc.

State Bank of India Vs Jagdish

Rattan Kaur etc. Vs Rabi etc.