Dismissed

Shanti Lal v. District Judge Pratapgarh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2018CW/4939/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jodhpur rejected a writ petition seeking quashing of judgments in a debt relief case under the Rajasthan Agricultural Indebtedness Act. The Court held that concurrent findings of fact regarding signature matching by lower courts need no interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction to quash impugned judgments is rejected. Stay application is also rejected.

Shanti Lal Vs District Judge Pratapgarh and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 4939/2008

Shanti Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

District Judge, Pratapgarh And Ors

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Abhinav Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Saruparia.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

04/10/2018

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

¶13

Facts relevant and essential for the disposal of this writ petition are noted hereinbelow.

¶14

The respondent Rewanti Lal creditor filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 in the court of Debt Relief Court, Chittorgarh against the petitioner alleging inter-alia that the petitioner had taken loan to the tune of Rs.50,000/- from him on 26.5.1997 for which, a receipt was executed inter-se between the parties. The debtor agreed to pay interest to the creditor @ 2% per month on the principal amount. The debtor did not repay the loan amount to the creditor upon which, he filed an application under Section 6 of the Act in the Debt Relief Court, Chittorgarh. The petitioner appeared in the Debt Relief Court and filed reply claiming that Shri Rewanti Lal got his signatures taken on 2-3 blank pronotes and the firm’s ledgers etc. and that he had never taken any such loan from him.

¶15

[CW-4939/2008]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

It was further claimed that Shri Rewanti lal had given a meager sum of Rs.5000/- as loan to the petitioner which he repaid in bits and pieces and that as a matter of fact, he had paid total sum of Rs.60,000/- to Shri Rewanti Lal. During evidence, the creditor exhibited the receipt dated 26.5.1997 under which the amount in question was given to the petitioner as loan. The petitioner denied his signatures on the receipt Ex.2. However, the Debt Relief Court compared the signatures of the petitioner on the receipt, the written-statement, Vakalatnama and after comparison thereof, came to a conclusion that the signatures on the receipt were matching with the admitted signatures of Shri Shanti Lal on these documents filed by him in the Court. The receipt was executed in presence of Devi Lal brother of Shanti Lal, who attested the same. However, Devi Lal was not examined in evidence by the debtor. Moti Lal NAW-2, who appeared on behalf of the debtor petitioner Shanti Lal, admitted the execution of the receipt alongwith a promissory note. After appreciating the entire evidence available on record, the Debt Relief Court proceeded to accept the application filed by the respondent creditor Rewanti Lal under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 and directed the petitioner to repay the principal amount with simple interest @ 6% per annum. He was given the liberty to clear off the amount in easy instalments of Rs.1000/- per month. The said judgment of the Debt Relief Court was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, who dismissed the same by judgment dated 16.11.2007. These two judgments are under challenge in this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for invocation of the supervisory writ jurisdiction

¶18

[CW-4939/2008]

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

of this Court so as to quash and set aside the impugned judgments.

¶21

Shri Abhinav Jain learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently tried to persuade the Court to reappreciate the evidence and urged that the findings recorded by the courts below in the impugned judgments are perverse and contrary to the record. He contended that the respondent failed to prove any promissory note so as to establish the factum of the loan allegedly advanced to the petitioner and craved acceptance of the writ petition on this solitary ground.

¶22

Per contra, Shri Saruparia, learned counsel representing the respondent urges that the Debt Recovery Application was not based on a promissory note but was rather founded on the receipt. The petitioner without any justification, denied his signatures on the receipt. However, this plea of the petitioner did not find favour with the court below, who compared the signatures on the receipt with the admitted signatures of the petitioner debtor in the court documents and held them to be identical. He thus urges that as two courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner and as these findings of facts do not ex-facie suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity whatsoever, this Court should not feel persuaded to interfere therein while exercising its supervisory writ jurisdiction.

¶23

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶24

The sole contention of Shri Jain to assail the impugned judgments was that no pronote was exhibited by the creditor so as

¶25

[CW-4939/2008]

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

to substantiate the allegation of advancement of loan. In this regard, it is sufficient to observe that the claim of the respondent was not based on a pronote but was rather founded on the receipt Ex.2 which was executed under the signatures of the petitioner and was attested by his brother Shri Devi Lal. Though the petitioner denied his signatures on the receipt but the Debt Relief Court compared the same with his admitted signatures and found them to be matching. Shri Devi Lal brother of the petitioner who stood as a witness in the receipt was not examined by the respondent in support of his defence. The witness NAW No.2 Moti Lal admitted the execution of the receipt. In this background, this Court is of the firm that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments passed by the two courts of competent jurisdiction, who have recorded concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner after appreciating and re-appreciating the evidence available on record.

¶28

Hence, this writ petition filed by the petitioner for invoking supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to assail the impugned judgments dated 16.11.2007 and 16.1.2006, is not considered fit to be accepted and is thus, rejected.

¶29

Stay application is also rejected.

¶30

No order as to costs.

¶31

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶32

/tarun goyal/ 46

Shanti Lal v. District Judge Pratapgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Lal v. District Judge Pratapgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh Vs State and Ors.

Prema Ram Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Rupi Devi Bheel and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Savitri Devi Vs State and Ors.

Sheopat Ram Vs State and Ors.

Prabhu Ram Vs State and Ors.