IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 30 ^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 193 OF 2021 Between:-

SHRI MATU RAM SON OF SHRI INDER, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAUNDI, TEHSIL BADDI, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.

……….APPELLANT (BY MR. MANOHAR LAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND SHRI LEKH RAJ SON OF SHRI GIAN CHAND, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5, NALAGARH, TEHSIL NALAGARH, DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.

.………………RESPONDENTS {MR. AMRINDER SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE)

___________________________________________________________

Whether approved for reporting: Yes This appeal coming on for HEARING this day, Hon’ble Mr.

Ajay Mohan Goel, delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 109/1 of 2014, titled as Lekh Raj Vs. Matu Ram, dated 02.03.2020, in terms whereof the suit for recovery filed against the present appellant by the rePspondent has been decreed, as also the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 16-NL/13 of 2020, titled as Matu R am Vs. Lekh Raj, dated 30.07.2021 whereby the appeal prefoerred against the judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court stands dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suoit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest w.e.Cf. 18.04.2011, till realization, on the grounds that the plaintiff was having good relations with one Dalip Chand, brother of the deceased, who was running a transport business. Dalip Chand died and the gdefendant succeeded to his estate. During his lifetime, Dalip Chand was iin need of money on account of his business requirements and he approached the plaintiff for the same. As the plaintiff was having good faith and trust on Dalip Chand, he lent a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Dalip Chand and it was agreed that he would return the said amount within one year alongwith interest of Rs. 50,000/-. Dalip Chand issued a cheque bearing No.567626, dated 18.04.2011, for an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-, drawn at PNB Nalagarh, in favour of the plaintiff to discharge this liability. The cheuqe was presented before the bank on 21.04.2011, but the same was dishonoured for want of funds. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Dalip Chand, but before said complaint could be decided, Dalip Chand dPied. Estate of Dalip Chand was succeeded by the defendant Matu Ram. In this background, after withdrawing the complaint, a suit was filed against the defendant who had succeeded to the estate of Dalip Chand, who as per the plaintiff was liable to discharge thoe legal liability on behalf of Dalip Chand.

3. The suit was resisted inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff was not having good relations with Dalip Chand. The factum of amount of Rs. 3.00 Lac havinog been borrowed by Dalip Chand from the plaintiff was also denied.C Issuance of cheque by Dalip Chand to discharge this liability in favour of the plaintiff was also denied. The stand taken in the written statement was that Dalip Chand (deceased) was having a Committee gbusiness alongwith other persons including the plaintiff and plaintiff was ithe head of the Committee and it was in the course of affairs of said Committee that the plaintiff had obtained several blank cheques from Dalip Chand as security. He (plaintiff) mischievously and with malafide intention filed the suit by forging the signatures of deceased Dalip Chand , who had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.

3,50,000/- alongwith interest, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit