Dismissed

Shubeg Singh v. Surjit Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2012RSA/386/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a suit for recovery of a loan, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appellant's challenge regarding denial of evidence opportunity was without merit as multiple chances were provided. Finding the courts below were justified, the second appeal was held to be without merit and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no substantive relief granted to the appellant.

Shubeg Singh Vs Surjit Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

RSA No.386 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.386 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: January 27, 2012

Shubeg Singh

.......Appellant

Versus

Surjit Singh

.......Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶16

Briefly stated, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery in terms of pleading that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/on 27.10.2001 and had duly executed a pronote and receipt in the presence of marginal witnesses. It is pleaded that the defendant had agreed to repay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 2% per month. The defendant had failed to repay the borrowed amount and as such, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- as principal amount and Rs.35,000/- as interest @ 2% per month w.e.f. 27.10.2001 to 5.1.2003 is due against him. The plaintiff approached the defendant on a number of occasions but upon refusal, the plaintiff had instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-.

¶17

The defendant filed a written statement taking a plea that he had been selling his agricultural produce to a firm, namely, M/s Darshan Singh Prem Singh Commission Agents, Ferozepur City and it was Darshan

¶18

¶19

RSA No.386 of 2011

¶20

Singh who was to pay some money to the defendant on account of sale of agricultural produce. The defendant claimed that he had been demanding such money from Darshan Singh who, in turn, to avoid his liability had connived with Surjit Singh plaintiff and had forged and fabricated the alleged pronote and receipt. The defendant denied that he had taken any loan from the plaintiff and further denied the execution of the pronote and receipt.

¶21

Upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

¶22

“1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/from the plaintiff on 27.10.2001 and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour?OPP

¶23

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from defendant?OPP

¶24

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, at what rate?OPP

¶25

Whether this suit is not maintainable in its present form?

¶26

Relief.”

¶27

Upon hearing the parties and having perused the record and evidence led, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a recovery of Rs.1,42,500/- i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- as principal and Rs.17,500/- towards interest calculated @ 1% per month. Further, the plaintiff was granted pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount.

¶28

Feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellant filed a civil appeal and vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.1.2010, the Additional

¶29

RSA No.386 of 2011 3

¶30

District Judge, Ferozepur had affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶31

I have heard Mr.Vinod Khunger, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

¶32

Learned counsel would primarily contend that the defendantappellant had been denied effective opportunity to lead evidence. Still further, even his application for permission to lead additional evidence and for examination of expert witness had been dismissed by the first Appellate Court.

¶33

It has further been argued that the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and had recorded findings which are erroneous. Exhibit P1 is the pronote and Exhibit P2 is the receipt on which the respondent-plaintiff had based his claim for the grant of decree of recovery against the defendant-appellant. The plaintiff-respondent, PW1, had clearly deposed that on 27.10.2001 he had given a sum of Rs.1,25,000/to the defendant-appellant in the presence of marginal witnesses Darshan Singh son of Dial Singh and Tara Singh son of Gopal Singh. Tara Singh son of Gopal Singh, PW2, has also testified and stated on oath that after receiving a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, the defendant-appellant had executed pronote, Exhibit P1 and receipt, Exhibit P2, which bear his signatures. The Courts below have accordingly held the execution of the pronote and receipt to be duly proved. On the other hand, it was also noticed that the defendantappellant in his cross-examination, in the first instance, had admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt and thereafter sought to clarify his statement by stating that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers.

¶34

RSA No.386 of 2011

¶35

¶36

In the later part of his cross-examination, the defendant-appellant even had gone to the extent of denying his signatures on the pronote and receipt totally. As such, the testimony of the defendant-appellant has been held to be totally unreliable. The Courts below on the basis of the pronote, Exhibit P1 and receipt, Exhibit P2, having been duly proved on record was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

¶37

The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that he had been denied opportunity to lead evidence is without merit. The trial Court has categorically observed that the defendant had availed 4/5 effective opportunities to conclude his evidence whereafter last opportunity had been awarded and the defendant having still not led any evidence, his evidence had been closed by order. I have also perused the order dated 21.1.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the application for permission to lead additional evidence and examination of expert witness filed by the defendant-appellant had been dismissed. The first Appellate Court had taken a note that various opportunities had been granted to the defendant-appellant for leading evidence before the trial Court and inspite of the same, the defendant-appellant was remiss before the first Appellate Court. The trial Court has also taken note of that the defendant-appellant, while appearing in the witness box, had admitted that the pronote and the receipt did bear his signatures. Accordingly, for valid and cogent reasons, the application for additional evidence had been dismissed.

¶38

I have not found it to be a fit case that would warrant interference in the findings of the Courts below. The findings are neither perverse nor are based on no evidence.

¶39

RSA No.386 of 2011 5

¶40

The present second appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

¶41

Being without merit, the present appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶42

Appeal dismissed.

¶43

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JANUARY 27, 2012 JUDGE

¶44

SRM

¶45

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Shubeg Singh v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubeg Singh v. Surjit Singh

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

Bhag Maal Sat Pal, Commission Agents Vs Tehal Singh

Randhir Singh and Anr. Vs Savitri Devi and Ors.

Yudhvir Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Halla and Ors.

Randhir Singh and Anr. Vs Piaro Devi and Ors.

U.H.B.V.N.L. and Anr. Vs Associated Petrochem Pvt. Limited

Anil Kumar Vs Sunit Devi