Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No. 4673.C of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

CM No. 4674.C of 2012 and RSA No. 1707 of 2012

Defendant Gurmail Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed this second appeal.

2. Suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent Rakesh Kumar, Partner of M/s Shambu Ram Vijay Kumar, Commission Agents against defendant appellant for recovery of Rs. 6,45,000/-. The plaintiff alleged that plaintiff Firm M/s Shambu Ram Vijay Kumar, Commission Agents is a partnership concern and is registered with the Registrar of Firms and Rakesh Kumar is its partner. The defendant on 18.8.1999 borrowed Rs. 3,75,000/- from the plaintiff-firm and executed pronote and receipt in its favour and agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 2% per annum but did not pay the loan amount and interest amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 3,75,000/- as principal amount and Rs. 2,70,000/- as interest till filing of the suit and accordingly filed the suit for recovery of total amount of Rs. 6,45,000/-.

3. The defendant broadly controverted the plaint averments. The defendant alleged that he had been selling his crops through M/s Shambu Ram Vijay Kumar, Commission Agents. Plaintiff Rakesh Kumar had been obtaining signatures of defendant on some blank and printed forms and papers and in the process, the plaintiff might have taken signatures of the defendant on blank pronote and receipt in question in connivance with scribe and marginal witnesses thereof. The defendant stopped dealing with the said Firm in the year 1998 and therefore, it is unbelievable that defendant borrowed Rs. 3,75,000/- from the plaintiff on 18.8.1999. The defendant denied having borrowed the amount from the plaintiff. The defendant also raised various other pleas.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery Rs. 3,75,000/- along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 18.8.1999 i.e. the date of advancing the loan till the date of decree of trial court and future interest from the date of decree of the trial court till recovery. First appeal preferred by defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this second appeal.

5. Along with appeal, appellant has moved CM No. 4674.C of 2012 for additional evidence to place on record charge sheet Annexure A/1 as amended by charge sheet Annexure A/2 against Rakesh Kumar and others and judgment Annexure A/3 passed in appeal whereby acquittal of defendant and others in a criminal case was affirmed.

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

7. As regards proposed additional evidence, the same is hardly relevant. Charge sheets Annexures A/1 and A/2 against Rakesh Kumar and others pertain to alleged incident dated 2.10.2001 regarding wrongful confinement of one Bhola Singh. It is beyond comprehension as to how the said charge sheets have any bearing on the instant lis which pertains to loan amount allegedly advanced to defendant on 18.8.1999. Similarly, judgment Annexure A/3 pertaining to FIR dated 14.4.2003 can have no bearing on the instant case. Rakesh Kumar is not party to the criminal case in judgment Annexure A/3 whereas defendant – appellant is not party in criminal case in charge sheets Annexures A/1 and A/2. Thus, proposed additional evidence is completely irrelevant. Accordingly, CM No. 4674.C of 2012 is dismissed.

8. Counsel for the appellant contended that alleged signatures of defendant on impugned pronote and receipt have not been affixed by the defendant. Reference was made to statements of Expert witnesses examined by both the parties and enlarged photographs of disputed signatures.

9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit in the same in view of pleadings and other evidence on record. The defend