Dismissed

Mohan Lal and Anr. v. Barkha Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2018RSA/2117/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning a dismissed suit for recovery of Rs 7 lacs based on a pronote and receipt, the High Court rejected arguments of illegality and perversity. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving execution due to non-examination of attesting witnesses and failure to cross-examine an affidavit-elect witness, affirming the lower courts' decision.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed, thereby upholding the dismissal of the suit for recovery.

Mohan Lal and Anr. Vs Barkha Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.2117 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.2117 of 2016 Date of Decision.09.05.2018

¶5

Mohan Lal and another

¶6

...Appellants

¶7

¶8

Barkha Singh ...Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants.

¶11

-.-

¶12

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶13

The appellants-plaintiffs are in regular second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact whereby suit for recovery of an amount of `7 lacs on the basis of pronote and receipt Ex.P1 and P2 has been dismissed.

¶14

The aforementioned suit was filed as the respondentdefendant had been selling his crop to the appellant-plaintiff, who had commission agency. Owing to the dealing, he had obtained loan but previous account had already been settled on 13.11.2003. However, the defendant again took loan of `7 lacs as loan on 19.05.2007 but did not pay back, necessitating the plaintiffs to file the present suit. The trial Court did not grant relief owing to the fact that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the pronote and receipt, which has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

¶15

Mr. Jai Bhagwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that plaintiffs had not examined

¶16

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.15 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA No.2117 of 2016 -2-

¶18

Major Singh and Jang Singh, the attesting witnesses of the pronote and receipt but both parties had examined handwriting expert i.e. PW3 on behalf of the plaintiffs and DW1 on behalf of the defendant. Both the hand writing experts gave report in favour of respective party, who engaged them, but Harpal Singh, PW2 submitted his affidavit in examination-in-chief but did not come up for crossexamination. But, he deposed that loan was given to the respondentdefendant and an entry was also made in the account book in this regard. Both the Courts below have not adverted the aforementioned facts in corrective perspective, therefore, there is illegality and perversity.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Jai Bhagwan. No explanation has come forth for not examining the attesting witnesses Major Singh and Jang Singh of pronote and receipt to testify that the loan receipt bore the thumb impression of Barkha Singh. It is common practice amongst the experts to tow to the line of the party who engages them. Harpal Singh had also not come forward for cross-examination, therefore, adverse inference has rightly been drawn. The appellants-plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus with regard to execution of pronote and receipt and rightly so, the Courts below have declined to grant relief.

¶20

In view of the aforementioned, the argument of Mr. Jai Bhagwan has not been able to bring the case within the realm of illegality and perversity to form a different opinion than the one

¶21

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.15 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

RSA No.2117 of 2016

¶23

-3-

¶24

already arrived at, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out.

¶25

The second appeal is dismissed.

¶26

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 09, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.05.15 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Mohan Lal and Anr. v. Barkha Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal and Anr. v. Barkha 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

Sukhpreet Singh Vs Dev Parkash

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs Mangal Ram

Amrit Pal Singh Cheema Thro Lrs Rajinder Kaur Cheema & Ors. Vs Mohini Rajput & Ors.

Sewa Singh Vs Madan Lal & Anr.

State of Punjab and Another Vs Balwinder Kaur

Karamjit Kaur Vs Sukhchain Singh