In a second appeal under the CPC, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the first appellate court's finding, that the respondent never took the alleged loan, was not perverse and attracted no interference.
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.2425 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2425 of 2009
Date of Decision: January 25, 2012
Bhag Maal Sat Pal, Commission Agents through its Proprietor
.......Appellant
Versus
Tehal Singh
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.DN Ganeriwala, Advocate for the respondent.
<><><>
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
RSA No.2425 of 2009
2
on a daily basis. It was pleaded that the defendant is an agriculturist and had good relations with the plaintiff-firm. It was pleaded that the defendant had approached the plaintiff-concern for a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- and had assured that he would repay the amount in the next crop season i.e. Sauni 1999 out of the sale proceeds of such crop. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the plaintiff-firm paid Rs.1,20,000/- on 25.8.1999 to the defendant and an entry to this effect was made in the Bahi of the plaintiff-firm at page 213 and towards the acknowledgment of the same, the defendant had put his thumb mark against such entry. The defendant had also agreed to pay interest @ 2% per mensum on such amount. Thereafter, the defendant never turned up at the shop of the plaintiff-firm and neither did he sell his crops to the plaintiff-firm. Hence, the suit.
RSA No.2425 of 2009
3
account with the plaintiff-firm and owed a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- to the plaintiff-firm. Defendant accordingly pleaded that the entry dated 25.8.1999 in the Bahi Khata of the plaintiff-firm regarding Rs.1,20,000/- is absolutely forged and such wrong entry had been made against the defendant only to recover an amount of money which was payable by Balwant Singh to the plaintiff-firm.
RSA No.2425 of 2009
4
RSA No.2425 of 2009
5
carried over for every consecutive year without any calculation of interest upon the principal amount. This, in itself, cast a serious doubt as regards the validity of such an entry in a Bahi Khata maintained by a Commission Agent.
RSA No.2425 of 2009
6
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I could not find the findings of the first Appellate Court to be perverse so as to warrant interference.
arises for determination in the present second appeal.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JANUARY 25, 2012 JUDGE
SRM
Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the first appellate court's finding at paragraph 10 in the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether the first appellate court's finding that the loan was never taken was perverse.
Bhag Maal Sat Pal
Tahal Singh
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
