Dismissed

Mohan Singh v. Baldev Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2023RSA/2322/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal regarding a suit for recovery, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the appellant's appeal. The High Court found no merit in the challenge to the First Appellate Court's decree dismissing the recovery suit, noting the appellant failed to adduce cogent evidence for fraud claims. No substantial question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.

Mohan Singh Vs Baldev Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC:048621

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

-.-

¶5

RSA-2322-1996 (O&M) Reserved on : 15.03.2023 Date of Decision : 11.04.2023

¶6

Mohan Singh ...Appellant

¶7

Versus Baldev Singh ...Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶9

Present : Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

ALKA SARIN, J.

¶12

The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.1996 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing his suit for recovery.

¶13

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffappellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.34,000/- taking a stand in the plaint that the defendant-respondent took a loan of Rs.25,000/- from him and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour which was duly attested by the witnesses. It was further the case that the defendant-respondent agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1½% per month on the loan amount. It was further averred in plaint that the defendant-respondent took away the original pronote and receipt by fraud and misrepresentation from Bhupinder Singh, the son of the plaintiff-appellant, and started alleging that he had paid the full amount to the plaintiff-appellant and he

¶14

also came to know that the defendant-respondent had got the signatures of his son

¶15

TRIPTI SAINI 2023.04.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

2023:PHHC:048621

¶17

¶18

on some blank papers. In the written statement the stand taken by the defendantrespondent was that the entire amount stood repaid on 14.06.1990 at the shop of Gurmail Singh, a commission agent. He has further denied that the pronote and receipt were taken away by fraud and misrepresentation or that the signatures of the son of the plaintiff-appellant were obtained on blank papers. It was further the stand of the defendant-respondent that the pronote was cancelled.

¶19

On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed :

¶20

i) Whether the defendant has made full payment of pronote and receipt dated 14.10.87 of the plaintiff and as such pronote and receipt stood cancelled and discharged ? OPD

¶21

ii) Relief.

¶22

The Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1993. Aggrieved by the same the defendant-respondent filed an appeal which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1996 and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that there was sufficient evidence on the record to show that the amount was taken by the defendant-respondent and never re-paid. Reference has been made to the statement of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel has contended that there was only one issue framed and the onus of the said issue was on the defendantrespondent and the defendant-respondent failed to discharge the said onus and hence the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2023.04.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

2023:PHHC:048621

¶26

¶27

Per contra , the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has contended that the cancelled pronote has been produced on the record as Ex.D/2 and that to pay the amount he had withdrawn an amount of Rs.20,000/- from his account which was proved by Ex.D/3 (photocopy of the relevant page of his pass book), Rs.15,000/- were taken from Gurmail Singh and the remaining amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid from his own pocket and as such Rs.37,000/- was returned to the plaintiff-appellant and that the cancelled receipt was Ex.D2/A. Gurmail Singh DW-3 stepped into the witness box and stated that Baldev Singh had taken a loan of Rs.15,000/- from him.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

In the present case the defendant-respondent had taken a stand that the entire amount stood paid to the plaintiff-appellant and that in order to repay the borrowed amount, Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from the Bank (Ex.D/3) and Rs.15,000/- was taken as loan from Gurmail Singh (DW-3) and the remaining Rs.2,000/- was paid from his own pocket. The cancelled receipt was also produced as Ex.D2/A. DW-3 Gurmail Singh also stepped into the witness box to prove the fact that Rs.15,000/- was taken as loan from him by the defendantrespondent. The only evidence in rebuttal by the plaintiff-appellant is his own statement. No evidence to the contrary was produced by the plaintiff-appellant. Further, though the case has been set up that the pronote and receipt had been taken away by fraud and misrepresentation, however, neither any details of the fraud and misrepresentation were given nor the same was proved by leading any cogent evidence. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2023.04.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶31

2023:PHHC:048621

¶32

¶33

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present regular second appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for determination by this Court. The present appeal, which is wholly devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

11.04.2023 (ALKA SARIN) tripti JUDGE NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO

¶36

TRIPTI SAINI 2023.04.11 10:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Mohan Singh v. Baldev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Singh v. Baldev 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

Chander Cheema Vs Hardeep Cheema

Ram Pal and Ors. Vs Sumer Chand and Ors.

Kulwant Singh and Anr. Vs Balram Kumar and Anr.

Ambedkar Sudhar Sabha and Anr. Vs Kaka Singh and Orss.

Vindu Goenka Vs Jai Narain and Ors.

Amrit Kaur (Since Deceased) Thru Lrs Vs Inderpal Kaur and Others