Dismissed

Harnek Singh v. Hamir Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Nov 2018RSA/3348/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal regarding a loan recovery suit, the High Court held that the pronote and receipt were proved through uncontradicted testimony of the deed writer and attesting witnesses. The appellant failed to rebut the evidence, leaving no substantial question of law; consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; decrees and judgments of courts below upheld.

Harnek Singh Vs Hamir Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.3348 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.3348 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.20.11.2018

Harnek Singh

...Appellant

Hamir Singh

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

-.-

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

¶14

C.M. No.8855-C of 2016

¶15

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 46 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶16

Application is allowed.

¶17

RSA No.3348 of 2016

¶18

The appellant-defendant has not been able to defend the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the amount of `80,000/- awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court including interest @9% per annum from the date the said amount was due till the date of decree and future interest @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation.

¶19

The plaintiff sought the aforementioned recovery on the premise that the defendant had obtained the loan by executing the pronote and receipt dated 05.03.2011. The same was scribed from Vinod Kumar, deed writer in favour of the plaintiff on request, the deed writer had also identified his seal as well as signatures on the pronote and receipt and entered the same in the register at Sr.

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA No.3348 of 2016 (O&M)

¶22

-2-

¶23

No.407.

¶24

The defendant opposed the suit and denied to have taken the loan or executed any pronote and receipt.

¶25

Mr. Phoolka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant submitted that the plaintiff has not been able to prove execution of the pronote and receipt, much less, passing of consideration. In such circumstances, the suit should have been dismissed.

¶26

I am afraid aforementioned argument of Mr. Phoolka is not sustainable. There is no illegality and perversity. The pronote and receipt have been proved through the testimony of the deed writer as well as the attesting witnesses. The defendant has not been able to belie the thumb impression on the pronote and receipt.

¶27

In such circumstances, the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below cannot be faulted with, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal stands dismissed.

¶28

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE

¶29

November 20, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No

¶30

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.28 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harnek Singh v. Hamir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harnek Singh v. Hamir Singh

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

Jeo Vs Kartar Singh & Ors.

Rohini Pathania Vs Kewal Singh & Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Umesh Gupta and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs Darbara Singh and Ors.

Manju Jain Vs Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Seeta Devi Vs Mam Chand through Lrs. & Ors.