The absence of unimpeachable evidence regarding the execution of a loan pronote and transfer of consideration leads to the dismissal of recovery suits.

Judgment

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. :-

CM-787-C-2019

i. This is an application under Order 22 Rule 3 for impleading/bringing on record the legal representative of appellant No.1 – Daljit Kaur.

ii. It has been averred in the application that during the pendency of litigation, Daljit Kaur (wife of appellant Col. Kuldip Singh) has also expired, leaving behind his legal representative (son) as mentioned in para No.3 of the application. It has further been averred that apart from him, there is no other legal representative of late Col. Kuldeep Singh, and Daljit Kaur (now deceased). The application is accompanied by an affidavit of Amandeep Singh, who is son of the deceased/appellant No.1 – Daljit Kaur.

iii. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perusing the application, which is supported by an affidavit, same is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the applicant as mentioned in para No.3 of the application is ordered to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased/appellant No.1 – Daljit Kaur. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not confer any title upon the legal representative to the estate of the deceased - appellant No.1 and this order has been passed only to allow the aforesaid legal representative to pursue this appeal.

iv. CM stands disposed of. Memo of parties is already appended with the appeal.

RSA-368-2019 (O&M)

1. Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the against the concurrent finding of dismissal of suit, filed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein).

2. Col. Kuldip Singh (now deceased) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,75,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- as principal loan amount, and Rs.75,000/- as interest over the said loan amount). It is pleaded in the suit that defendant (respondent herein) – Achhra Singh, borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.11.2007 from Col. Kuldip Singh, and in lieu thereof, defendant executed one pronote and receipt by signing the same in ‘Punjabi’. As per said pronote, defendant has to pay the interest @ 1.5% per annum.

During the pendency of the suit, Col. Kuldip Singh expired, and he was represented through his wife ‘Daljit Kaur’ and minor son ‘Amandeep Singh’, through his mother - Daljit Kaur. Further, during the pendency of the suit, ‘Daljit Kaur’ also expired, therefore, proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff were represented through the sole surviving plaintiff i.e. ‘Amandeep Singh’. Further, for the purpose of succeeding the rights of ‘Daljit Kaur’, ‘Amandeep Singh’ has been allowed to be legal representative on her behalf in the present appeal also, by passing a separate order of the even date in CM-787-C-2019.

3. In the written statement, specific ground is taken by the defendant that he has never executed any pronote or receipt, and the alleged pronote and receipt does not bear the signatures of the defendant. Further alleged that he does not know how to sign and write in Punjabi, and he signs only in English language. It is also pleaded that present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in connivance with Mr. Kaur Chand, who is Commission Agent at Grain Market, Khanna.

Defendant further pleaded that he used to sell the crop through the Commission Agent namely; Kaur Chand. Said Kaur Chand committed certain irregularities in the account, and on that account he was found guilty of cheating, and thereafter, defendant stopped selling his crop through him since the year 2006. Thus, alleged pronote and receipt is result of forgery committed by said ‘Kaur Chand’. Accordingly, the suit was prayed to be dismissed.

4. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed the following six issues:

“1. Whether the defendant executed pronote and receipt dated 6.11.2007 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether consideration passed in hand under pronote and receipt in question? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.5 lac from defendant? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 1.5% per month from the defendant? OPP

5. Whether suit is not maintai