Dismissed

Nachhatar Singh v. Jaspal Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jan 2015RSA/4755/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses two regular second appeals regarding civil suits for money recovery based on pronotes and receipts. The High Court held that the presumption of consideration under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unless rebutted by evidence, and the appellant failed to do so. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeals RSA No.4755 of 2012 and RSA No.5059 of 2012 were dismissed.

Nachhatar Singh Vs Jaspal Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.01.2015

Nachhatar Singh

... Appellant

Vs.

Jaspal Singh ... Respondent

¶9

RSA No.5059 of 2012 (O&M)

¶10

Nachhatar Singh ...Appellant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

Sukhtinder Singh ...Respondent

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶14

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

¶15

To be referred to reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Present:Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate

¶18

for the appellant.

¶19

Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶20

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)

¶21

This order shall dispose of two regular second appeals i.e. RSA No.4755 of 2012 titled as Nachhatar Singh vs. Jaspal Singh and RSA No.5059 of 2012 titled as Nachhatar Singh vs. Sukhtinder Singh.

¶22

Both regular second appeals are directed against the

¶23

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.02.18 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶24

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M)

¶25

¶26

concurrent finding of fact and law whereby the suit of plaintiffrespondent for recovery of 2,14,000/- out of which principle amount is2,00,000/- and interest `14,000/- at the rate of 1% per month from 04.09.2008 to 24.04.2009 on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 4.9.2008 has been decreed.

¶27

In RSA No.4755 of 2012, the pronote dated 4.9.2008, was written by Rakesh Kumar-Deed Writer and attested by two witnesses whereas one witness i.e. Kashmir Singh, PW-3 has been examined by the respondent-plaintiff. In RSA No.5059 of 2012, pronote dated 8.9.2008 was written by Parminder Kumar-Deed Writer and attested by PW3-Jalwinder Singh, who, has been examined by the plaintiff-respondent.

¶28

Defendant-appellant had taken a defence that respondent-plaintiff had made a complaint to the notice and in the police proceedings, his thumb impressions and signatures were obtained on the pronote and receipt. Both the Courts below after examining oral and documentary evidence, while rejecting the defence of the appellant-defendant, decreed the suit.

¶29

Mr. H.S.Saini, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that both the Courts below have committed illegality much less perversity in decreeing the suit as the plaintiffrespondent failed to prove the averments made in the plaint by leading a direct and cogent evidence and therefore, the present appeals involve following substantial questions of law:-

¶30

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.02.18 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶31

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M)

¶32

¶33

“i) Whether the judgments and decrees dated 05.03.2012 passed by the Ld. Trial Court and 09.08.2012 passed by the Ld. Lower Appellate Court are perverse, result of misreading and misinterpreting of evidence?

¶34

ii) Whether the Ld. Trial Court was justified in granting the decree for recovery on the basis of forged and fabricated pronote and receipt dated 04.09.2008 Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which has been allegedly shown to be executed after two years of advancing alleged loan i.e. October/November 2006 as per the X-examination of the plaintiff? iii) Whether Ex.PX is proved on record as per law in the absence of any witness stepped into witness box to prove its contents?

¶35

iv) Whether the alleged statement Ex.PX under Section 161 Cr.P.C, if any made by the appellant before the police is admissible in evidence which has been taken for the purpose of compromise under pressure and under influence?”

¶36

Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate in support of his averments argued that the defendant-appellant in cross-examination admitted that he had suffered a statement before the DSP, Faridkot, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex.PX, wherein the defendant-appellant

¶37

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.02.18 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶38

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M)

¶39

¶40

admitted the execution of the pronote.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below.

¶42

The submission made on behalf of the appellantdefendant is devoid of merit as appellant-defendant in crossexamination stated that he did not know the contents of the affidavit much less written statement filed in support of the defence. He further admitted that he has suffered a statement before the DSP, Faridkot, Ex.PX, wherein he had admitted the receipt of loan and execution of pronote and receipt.

¶43

For the sake of brevity, the cross-examination of Nachhatar Singh in Civil Suit which resulted into filing of RSA No.4755 of 2012 is extracted herein below:-

¶44

“It is correct that Sukhtinder Singh son of Jaspal Singh plaintiff had filed suit against me which was decreed. It is correct that my statement was recorded by DSP (D) Faridkot attested copy of which is Ex.PX. Volunteered I cannot tell on which date and it was for compromise and no money transaction took place. It is correct that no application was filed by me before Higher Officers regarding no money transaction. I have no knowledge what is written in my affidavit tendered in this Court. Volunteered I had narrated the facts to

¶45

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.02.18 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶46

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M)

¶47

¶48

my counsel Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal. I had also got recorded in that affidavit that the police had also got recorded in that affidavit that the police has got my thumb impressions on the pronote under compelling circumstance. No application was filed before Higher Officer. Volunteered it was presumed that compromise has been effected. I even did not file any application after filing the suit. It is correct that on 4.9.2008 my wife Jagjit Kaur was ill. It is wrong to suggest that I was in need of money for wife's treatment. It is wrong to suggest that I had taken the loan amount mentioned in the pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 and after understanding its contents and after receipt of money I thumb marked the same in the presence of marginal witnesses. I deny my thumb impressions on pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. I have not got recorded in my affidavit Ex.DW1/A that the police authorities got the signatures/thumb impressions of the deponent on some blank papers and had got compromised the matter. Attention of the witness drawn to page No.4 of his affidavit at Mark A to A1 wherein it is so recorded. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”

¶49

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.02.18 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶50

RSA No.4755 of 2012 (O&M)

¶51

¶52

The said document Ex.PX was confronted to the appellant-defendant in civil suit whereas in RSA No.5059 of 2012, appellant-defendant unequivocally admitted that he suffered a statement before the DSP, Faridkot.

¶53

In view of provision of Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption of passing of consideration and no evidence has been led by the appellant to rebut the same. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact and law and there is no illegality much less perversity in the finding of the Courts below.

¶54

No substantial question of law arises for determination of

¶55

this Court.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

¶57

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶58

January 27, 2015 savita

¶59

SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.02.18 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Nachhatar Singh v. Jaspal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachhatar Singh v. Jaspal Singh

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

Karamjit Kaur Vs Manjit Singh and Ors.

Bachittar Singh and Ors. Vs Mohinder Kaur and Ors.

Ved Parkash Vs Ram Singh & Ors.

Kako Bai and Anr. Vs Malkiat Singh and Ors.

Ghanshyam Vs Rajinder

Basau Vs State of Haryana & Anr.