Appeal against civil appellate decree dismissing suit for recovery of loan principal and interest. Single judge found lower court's findings regarding document discrepancies were reasonable, dismissing appeal.
Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment and decree affirmed.
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.2235 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2235 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:27.11.2018
Kor Singh
... Appellant
Vs.
Suresh Kumar ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr.Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The appellant-plaintiff has not been successful in claiming the recovery of `25,000/- along with interest @ 2% per month on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 18.06.2003, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
Mr. R.K.Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submitted that defendant was extended facility of loan of 25,000/-, half of which would be 12,500/- but the defendant admitted to have received only `5,000/- as digit 2 had been added before Rs.5000/-. In this regard, both the parties examined the expert. The experts have given the report in favour of respective clients. In such circumstances, the Court below as per the provisions of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, could have assumed the role of expert. Besides expert, witnesses to the pronote and receipt, Jagdish-PW2 and Ram Sarup, Namberdar, PW3 were examined. Despite extensive cross-examination, they have been coherent and
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.01 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.2235 of 2016 (O&M) {2}
consistent and the Court below was bound to decree the suit, therefore, there is gross illegality and perversity in the findings under challenge.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable and of the view that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees, for, on bare perusal of the aforementioned documents, digit 2 vis-a-vis 2% written in numeric, there is variation in motion. Similarly, against digit `2500/-, (1) one has been written later on. There is a darker impression than the regular one. There is no reference of the figures in the words. The witness may tell lie but the documents may not.
As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees under challenge which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| November 27, 2018 savita |
|
| Whether Speaking/Reasoned | Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | Yes/No |
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.12.01 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court's findings regarding the variation between figures and words in the pronote and receipt amounts are illegal or perverse.
Kor Singh
Suresh Kumar
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
