L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM NO.2458-C of 2011

Allowed as prayed for.

Main appeal.

2. Defendant-Bhupinder Singh, having lost in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.

3. Suit was filed by Budhi Singh-plaintiff (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal representatives) against the defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.46000/- alleging that the defendant-appellant representing himself to be general attorney of his uncle Sukhdev Singh, agreed to sell a house belonging to Sukhdev Singh to the plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- and received Rs.35000/- as earnest money and executed writing for the same. However, defendant did not execute requisite sale deed. The plaintiff then directly purchased the said house from Sukhdev Singh by paying him total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- as Sukhdev Singh refused to adjust the amount of Rs.35000/- which had been received by the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed recovery of principal amount of Rs.35000/- and interest amount of Rs.11000/- on the basis of receipt dated 12.02.2004

4. Defendant resisted the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having executed the alleged receipt. It was pleaded that both the parties were employed in the same Bank. The defendant sometimes used to give blank signed paper for submitting leave application on account of some emergency or urgent work. The said blank paper may have remained unused and came in the hands of the plaintiff, who prepared alleged receipt dated 12.02.2004 on the said paper. Designation of the defendant as SFO (Senior Field Officer) is also mentioned below his signature depicting that he had affixed the said signature for the purpose of some official work of the Bank. The defendant denied having received Rs.35000/- from the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also raised.

5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2010 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

7. The defendant in his written statement itself has impliedly admitted his signature on receipt Ex.P-1 relied on by the plaintiff. Defendant’s explanation that he had given blank signed paper for submitting his leave application is completely falsified by the defendant’s own testimony. The defendant stated in cross-examination that he had given such blank signed papers 2-3 times to Sant Singh for the purpose of leave applications and every time the said papers were used for submitting his leave applications. Consequently, there was no surplus unconsumed blank signed paper which could fall in the hands of the plaintiff for preparation of receipt Ex.P-1. Secondly, even in the written statement, the defendant did not take a definite stand that any such blank signed paper had been used by the plaintiff to prepare receipt Ex.P-1. On the contrary, the defendant used the word ‘may be’ to plead that blank paper may have remained unused and fell in the hands of the plaintiff, who prepared the receipt Ex.P-1. Thirdly, it is not explained as to how any such unused blank signed papers came into the hands of the plaintiff. The defendant stated in the witness box that every time he gave unsigned blank paper to one Sant Singh, who submitted leave application every time on behalf of defendant. Consequently, there was no question of any surplus unconsumed blank signed paper having fallen into the hands of the plaintiff when every time the blank signed paper was actually used by Sant Singh to submit leave application on behalf of defendant. Fourthly, in view of version of the defendant that he had given the blank signed papers to Sant Singh, it was most essential for the defendant to have examined said Sant Singh