Single judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a second appeal in a civil recovery suit. The court rejected the appellant's plea of limitation due to illiteracy and upheld the lower courts' decree based on documentary evidence and admissions.
Second appeal dismissed on limitation and merits.
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.5360 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.5360 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.07.10.2016
Raj Singh .......Appellant Vs Jai Kishan ........Respondent Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for the appellant.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
-.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The appellant-defendant is aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit for recovery of `80,000/- along with interest @2% from the date of pro note till institution of the suit and @8% from the date of institution of suit till realization, has been decreed.
Mr. Anil Kumar Malik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he did not execute the pro note and receipt. Both were owners and the defendant could not make the payment of his share, therefore, pro note was executed. Later on, plot of 150 sq. yards was sold to Joginder Singh resident of village Ugra Kheri by both parties for a sum of 1,65,000/-. The entire payment was received by the plaintiff. Rather the defendant was entitled to recover sum of 65,000/- as the plot sold was of 114 sq. yards. All these facts have not been noticed by the Courts below.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and appraised the paper book. There is categoric admission of the pro note and receipt. In case, the aforementioned assertion/submissions are to be believed, no documentary evidence qua sale of the land for valuable consideration of PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.10.13 11:43I attest to the accuracy and `1,65,000/- to Joginder Singh has been placed on record. In the absence of integrity of this document
RSA No.5360 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
the evidence and admission of the pro note and receipt, the Courts below had no other option but to decree the suit. The concurrent findings of fact are based upon the documentary and oral evidence and the defendant had failed to discharge the onus.
There is delay of 1170 days in filing the second appeal. No explanation has come forth for not filing the appeal within time. The reason given is that he is an illiterate, honest, simple villager having faith in God and does not know the technicalities of law. It is not a case where the defendant was ex parte. He contested the case. He was aware of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The explanation given for having acquired the knowledge is that he came to know about the same when the bailiff came to affix the auction notice on the house. Such explanation is inexplicable, much less, unreasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, I do not intend to differ with the findings rendered by the Courts below as the same are based upon correct appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The second appeal is dismissed on limitation as well as on
merits.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
October 07, 2016 Pankaj*
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.10.13 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed after 1170 days is maintainable despite the appellant's claim of illiteracy.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the execution of a promissory note should be disturbed in the second appeal.
Raj Singh
Jai Kishan
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
