Dismissed

Jasbir Singh v. Dhanpat

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2018RSA/5188/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

the single-judge High Court bench dismissed a second appeal filed by a defendant against a decreed money suit, holding that admitted signatures and consistent testimony regarding the loan established the transaction, and no illegality or perversity was found in the lower courts' appreciation of facts.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal stands dismissed; the judgment and decree of the courts below remain intact.

Jasbir Singh Vs Dhanpat — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

RSA No.5188 of 2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

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

¶4

RSA No.5188 of 2017 Date of Decision.06.03.2018

Jasbir Singh

......Appellant

Dhanpat

........Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

-.-

¶13

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

¶14

The appellant-defendant is in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016 whereby the suit claiming an amount 6,80,000/- i.e. 4 lacs as principal amount and 2,80,000/- as interest against the appellant-defendant had been decreed for 4 lacs along with interest @24% per annum from the date of advance till filing of the suit and @6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till actual realization and upheld by the lower Appellate Court with slight modification in the rate of interest i.e. @9% per annum instead of 24%.

¶15

The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit claiming aforementioned amount on the ground that the defendant had borrowed a sum of `4 lacs on 6.10.2009 and in lieu thereof, executed a pronote and receipt of even date. The aforementioned pronote and receipt were witnessed by the witnesses. A legal notice dated 16.02.2012 rasing the demand was not adhered to, compelling the plaintiff to institute the suit on 5.10.2012.

¶16

The appellant-defendant contested the suit by taking the preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi and concealment of

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.21 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA No.5188 of 2017 -2-

¶19

true and material facts. It was submitted that Puran Singh, father of the defendant, was customer of the firm of M/s Satya Pal Ram Pal Bankers & Commission Agents, Dhand Mandi, Kurukshetra in District Kaithal. Puran Singh, father of the defendant used to sell his crop to the said firm. The said firm took the signatures of the defendant on blank pronote and some document in the year 2003 as security. However, in the year 2004, dispute arose between the defendant and said firm. Ram Pal, proprietor of the said firm moved an application to S.P. Kaithal for taking action against the defendant regarding recovery of `4 lacs which was allegedly taken by the defendant on 1.6.2013. The matter between them was compromised in the Panchayat vide compromise and the said firm issued a no due slip dated 30.11.2014 to the defendant and his father but the original blank pronote was not returned. It is in that background, the plaintiff misused the aforementioned documents claiming the relief. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate who was real nephew of Ram Pal and Ravinder Singh, Advocate witnessed the alleged pronote.

¶20

The plaintiff in support of pleadings examined himself as PW1 and Ravinder Singh as PW2 and brought on record following documents:-

¶21

Ex.PW1/A - Affidavit of plaintiff tendered in examination in chief. Ex.PW2/A - Affidavit of PW-2 tendered in examination in chief. Ex.P1 - Pronote Ex.P2 - Receipt Ex.P3 - Legal notice dated 16.9.2012 Ex.P4 - Postal receipt. Ex.P5 - Registered A.D.

¶22

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.21 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RSA No.5188 of 2017

¶24

-3-

¶25

On the other hand, defendant examined himself as DW-1, Ram

¶26

Singh as DW-2 and brought on record following documents:-

¶27

Ex.DW1/A	-	Affidavit of defendant tendered in examination in chief.
Ex.DW2/A	-	Affidavit of DW-2 tendered in examination in chief.
Ex.D-1/Mark-2	-	Compromised
Ex.D-2	-	Report of Indian Security Press, Nasik.
Mark D-1	-	Copy of application.
Mark D-3	-	No dues certificate.

¶28

The trial Court on the basis of the evidence decreed the suit as

¶29

indicated above and appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed.

¶30

Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the admission of signatures on the pronote and receipt was not sufficient to prove it whereas, the consideration of amount, much less, its contents were required to be proved on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. In support of his contention, he relied upon the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tatipamula Naga Raju Vs. Pattem Padmavathi 2011(4) SCC 726 and by this Court in Sohan Singh Vs. Amritpal Singh 2011 (4) PLR 305.

¶31

It was further submitted that the fraud in the aforementioned case was evident as the plaintiff in the cross-examination did not even remember that in whose presence, the consideration was passed. In fact, the plaintiff was not even an income tax payee and did not produce on record the consideration alleged to have been passed on the appellant-defendant, therefore, onus was not discharged, thus, the trial Court ought not to have PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.21 11:11 decreed the suit as onus with regard to passing of the consideration had not I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

RSA No.5188 of 2017 -4-

¶33

been discharged. The appellant-defendant being a rustic villager did not know the intricacies of law. In fact, Ex.D2, report of the Indian Security Press, Nasik revealed that stamps used on the pronote and receipt were of 1995 whereas the pronote and receipt were dated 06.10.2009, therefore, the defence taken in the written statement was directly connected with the transactions. Having failed to take into consideration the aforementioned facts, there is abdication, much less, illegality and perversity. The legal notice alleged to have been sent by the plaintiff was not received by the appellant-defendant, therefore, there was occasion to rebut the same, thus, urges this Court for determination of substantial questions of law as carved out in the memorandum of appeal.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Aggarwal. The appellant-defendant admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. Therefore, the point to be seen is whether the the No Due Certificate given by the firm could be relied or connected to the transaction indicated in the pronote or receipt. The answer is in “Negative”, for, the appellant failed to connect the aforementioned transaction vis-a-vis the advancement of money extended by the respondentplaintiff. Rather it goes against him, for, apparently it is made to believe that he had been in the habit of taking loan. Be that as it may, all the defences and arguments raised with regard to consideration and having not known the intricacies of law falls flat. In the opening line of the crossexamination, the defendant admitted that he was appointed as ASI in the Police Department. If some fraud has been played upon him, nothing prevented him to avail the remedy available in law as imparting knowledge

¶35

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.21 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

RSA No.5188 of 2017 -5-

¶37

of law was part of training of a person recruited in the Police Department in order to discharge the duty of protecting life and liberty of the public.

¶38

The consideration of 4 lacs has been proved through the testimony of Ravinder Singh, who was consistent and coherent in his crossexamination. Nothing contrary surfaced. In my view, the appellantdefendant failed to prove the fact that he never borrowed the amount of 4 lacs. The trial Court did not grant interest as claimed by the plaintiff since it was a commercial transaction and granted interest @24% per annum from the date of advance till filing of the suit and @6% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till actual payment thereof, owing to the fact that the element of commercial interest was part and parcel of the pronote and receipt. No other argument has been raised.

¶39

There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi supra but facts and circumstances of each case has to be considered. No explanation has come forward for not resorting to any criminal proceedings against the respondent-plaintiff.

¶40

As an upshot of my finding, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below as the same are based upon correct appreciation of fact and law, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The second appeal stands dismissed.

¶41

	(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
March 06, 2018
Pankaj*
	Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
	Whether reportable No

¶42

PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.03.21 11:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jasbir Singh v. Dhanpat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh v. Dhanpat

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

Baljit Singh Vs Nasib Kaur

Sadhu Singh Vs Gurdeep Singh and Ors.

Mangat Ram Vs Gaje Singh Deceased Th Lrs

Balak Ram @ Kaka Ram Vs Karnail Singh and Ors.

Rajiv Kambooj and Anr. Vs Municipal Council Kartarpur & Ors.

Jogi Ram Vs Gram Panchayat Mohangarh