Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh v. Mukhtiar Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Sept 2024RSA/639/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant defendant challenged decreeing of a suit for recovery. High Court upheld appellate court decision noting plaintiff proved loan execution via attesting witnesses while defendant failed to deny signature personally. Adverse inference drawn against defendant causing dismissal of appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs along with reaffirmance of first appellate decree.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Mukhtiar Kaur — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

RSA-639-1999 (O&M)

Sukhdev Singh

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Mukh�ar Kaur . . . . Respondent

¶8

¶9

Reserved on: 23.09.2024 Pronounced on: 25.09.2024

¶10

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶12

Argued by:- Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

¶15

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶16

Defendant of the suit is in this appeal against reversal in as much as the suit filed by the plain�ff Mukh�ar Kaur (respondnet herein) for recovery of ₹20,550/- was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.08.1997 but the appeal filed by her was accepted by the first appellate court, thus, decreeing the suit.

¶17

Plain�ff sought recovery by pleading that defendant/appellant had borrowed an amount of ₹15,150/- from her on 08.03.1991 and had executed pronote (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2) on the same date. Defendant agreed to return the same amount along with interest @ 5% per month. However, plain�ff confined her claim to the interest @ 1% per month and stated that at the �me of filing the suit, an amount of ₹15,150/- towards principal amount and ₹5,400/- towards interest was outstanding. Defendant refuted the claim by denying to have availed any loan. He alleged the pronote and receipt relied by the plain�ff to be forged documents and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶18

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-639-1999 (O&M)

¶20

Trial Court believed the version of defendant by holding that pronote and receipt were not proved and so, dismissed the suit. However, the appeal filed by the plain�ff Mukh�ar Kaur was accepted by Ld. Addi�onal District Judge, Faridkot on 06.11.1998 and the suit was decreed.

¶21

Assailing the aforesaid finding, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the appellant- defendant that well-reasoned finding of the Court below has been wrongly reversed by the Appellate Court without apprecia�ng the evidence on record, par�cularly the statement of the expert witness to the effect that signature on the pronote and receipt did not tally with the signature of the defendant.

¶22

ACer hearing ld. Counsel for both the sides and perusing the paperbook, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal.

¶23

As observed by Ld. First Appellate Court, pronote (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2) have been duly proved not only by the tes�mony of plain�ff Mukh�ar Kaur but further by the tes�mony of both the aDes�ng witnesses of the documents namely PW-2 Lakhwinder Singh and PW-3 Gurcharan Singh. These witnesses also proved passing on the considera�on to the defendant. Learned Appellate Court further observed that all these witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examina�on but nothing could be elicited so as to disbelieve them.

¶24

Trial Court disbelieved the version of the plain�ff and the aDes�ng witnesses of pronote & receipt on the ground that DW-1 Inderjit Sharma, the son of Ram Sarup, scribe of the documents stated that Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 did not bear the signature of his father Ram Sarup. Defendant had also examined one Anil Kumar Gupta, document expert as DW-3, who compared the disputed signature of defendant on the pronote and receipt with the standard signature and opined that Ex.P-1 & P-2 were not signed by the defendant.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

RSA-639-1999 (O&M)

¶28

Learned Appellate Court has rightly discarded the tes�mony of DW-1 and DW-3 by observing that there is a tendency on the part of expert witness to support the view of the person who called him. Reliance can be placed upon “Gulzar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh” 1998(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 571 .

¶29

The most important point to be noted is that defendant Sukhdev did not enter the witness box to deny his signature on the pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2. The only other witness examined by the defendant apart from DW1 Inderjit Sharma and DW3 Anil Gupta was DW2 Nand Singh, who proved some Will Ex.D-1, which has nothing to do with the pronote and receipt.

¶30

Defendant Sukhdev Singh having not entered the witness box, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him that he did not want to face the cross-examina�on. In the presence of the tes�mony of the two aDes�ng witnesses of the pronote as well as receipt proving due execu�on of the same by the defendant Sukhdev Singh, no reliance could have been placed upon the statement of an expert witness dispu�ng the signature of defendant, par�cularly when defendant himself had not entered into the witness box, to deny his signature on Ex.P1 & Ex.P2.

¶31

Consequently, it is held that learned first Appellate Court did not commit any error in accep�ng the appeal of the plain�ff and decreeing the suit. As such, finding no merit in the present appeal, same is hereby dismissed with costs.

¶32

25.09.2024

¶33

Nee�ka Tuteja

¶34

(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE

¶35

Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes

¶36

Page 3 of 3

¶37

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.25 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhdev Singh v. Mukhtiar Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. Mukhtiar Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya @ Balwinder Kaur Vs Harjinder Singh & Ors.

Ashish Kishore Vs Darspal Singh and Ors.

Tarlochan Singh Vs Union Bank of India and Another

Amit Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana

Vijay Kumar Korpal Vs Ram Kumar Sharma and Others

Kuljeet Kaur and Another Vs Bhullan Devi and Others