The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal filed by a plaintiff challenging decrees dismissing his suit for recovery. The court held that the courts below correctly found the debtor was on military duty and could not have executed the alleged documents, finding no merit in the appeal.
The second 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.
���������������������������������������� ��������������
��������������������������
Date of decision: 21st April, 2014
Gura Singh
� Appellant
Versus
Parminder Singh
� Respondent
����� �����!�"����������������#����#����������
Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
��#����#���������$����
This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby his suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt was dismissed.
Suffice it to say that the defendant1respondent had denied his liability to pay and had taken a plea that he neither borrowed any amount nor executed any pronote and receipt. It may further be noticed that the defendant1respondent had taken a further stand that he was serving in paramilitary forces and was not staying in the village and was drawing salary and thus, there was no occasion for him to
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
2
�������������������������
borrow any amount. Voluminous evidence has come on record according to which on the date of execution of the alleged pronote and receipt i.e. 05.03.2006 the defendant1respondent was on duty in the forward area and thus, there was no occasion to execute the alleged pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff1appellant.
In any case, both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding to the effect that there was no possibility of borrowing the alleged amount by the defendant1 respondent from the plaintiff1appellant on 05.03.2006. While recording such a finding, the courts below have relied upon the evidence of Captain Sandeep Kumar DW13 and Local Commissioner Mr. J.S. Jassal, appointed by the Court, from which it has been established that on 05.03.2006 the defendant was on duty and there is no evidence to rebut the aforesaid findings.
In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal as no substantial question of law arises therein.
Dismissed.
���#����#����������� ������
�%&'(���$������ ���
Singh Rattan Pal 2014.04.28 14:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal lies in a decree dismissing a suit for recovery based on a pronote and receipt.
Whether the findings that the debtor was on military duty and could not borrow the amount are insusceptible of legal challenge.
Whether any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Gura Singh
Parminder Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
