Dismissed

Bhag Singh v. Rakesh Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Nov 2018RSA/1755/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for recovery of money, the High Court rejected the appellant's claim that the lower courts erred in decreeing the suit despite the plaintiff's failure to reflect the loan amount in income tax returns, dismissing the appeal as it lacked substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no interference in the orders of the courts below.

Bhag Singh Vs Rakesh Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.1755 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1755 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.12.11.2018

Bhag Singh

......Appellant

Vs.

Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶13

The appellant-defendant has not been able to defend the suit for recovery of 7,00,000/- as principal and 5,04,000/- as interest, which has been decreed by the trial Court and upheld by the lower Appellate Court.

¶14

The plaintiff instituted the suit on 30.04.2011 claiming aforementioned amount on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 18.05.2008.

¶15

The defendant denied the execution of the pronote and came up with the stand that the plaintiff may have misused certain papers as there was no need to borrow such huge amount of `7 lakhs in cash. The amount was never reflected in the income tax returns of the plaintiff.

¶16

On preponderance of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

¶17

Mr. Ravish Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submitted that though the plaintiff examined marginal witnesses PW1 Rajesh Kumar and PW2 Dev Raj

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.15 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA No.1755 of 2016 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

but the fact of the matter is that plaintiff in examination admitted that he had not reflected entry of 7 lakhs either in the return of firm or individual. That itself was a clincher to non-suit the plaintiff. The onus as enshrined under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, had thus, not been discharged. The Courts below have ignored the aforementioned facts. The plaintiff except examination of marginal witnesses had not been able to prove advancement of loan of 7 lakhs or the agreement containing the element of interest.

¶22

I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Bansal would not be able to bring the case within the realm of illegality and perversity, for, despite extensive cross-examination, both the witnesses have been coherent and consistent. No circumstances have come forward as to how the signature/thumb impression of the defendant were borne on the pronote and receipt. No sane person would sit idle or at home in such eventuality, rather would run from pillar to post to make an attempt to lodge a criminal case. This is what has been import of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. In such circumstances, non-reflection of the amount in the income tax return would not non-suit the plaintiff. At the best, the plaintiff could have faced wrath of the Income Tax Department, if it has been a case of tax evasion or otherwise. Even the element of interest cannot be reduced as the same is part and parcel of the pronote and receipt.

¶23

As an upshot of my finding, arguments of Mr. Bansal have not been able to cut ice to bring the case with the realm of illegality and perversity, much less, no substantial question of law

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.15 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

-3-

¶26

RSA No.1755 of 2016 (O&M)

¶27

arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 12, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶29

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.15 11:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bhag Singh v. Rakesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhag Singh v. Rakesh Kumar

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

Jaswant Singh Th Lrs Charan Kaur and Ors. Vs Shamsher Singh

Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs Surjit Singh

Raghbir Singh Vs Krishna

Rajbir Singh & Ors. Vs Santosh & Ors.

Monu Vs Devender Singh and Anr.

Malkiat Singh Bains Vs Avtar Singh and Ors.