IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on 17.09.2025 Judgment pronounced on 19.09.2025 AMIR CHAND ... APPELLANT VERSUS RAJINDER KUMAR ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Satish Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant, who is aggrieved by the impugned judgment & decree dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, whereby the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The appellant-defendant is also aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which first appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the ground that the defendant-appellant had borrowed the said amount on 01.07.2010 and had executed a pronote note and receipt dated 01.07.2010. The appellant/defendant had undertaken to repay the borrowed sum on demand along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Despite repeated requests and demands, the appellant/defendant failed to make the payment. Consequently, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 23.05.2011 to the appellant-defendant.

However, no payment was made, and accordingly, the suit was filed.

3. In his written statement, the appellant-defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and also denied the execution of the pronote dated 01.07.2010 in favour of the plaintiff-resopndent. It was asserted that the plaintiff-respondent and his family members are running a commission agency under the name and style of M/s Rameshwar Dass Rajinder Kumar, Commission Agents, Anaj Mandi, Cheeka, and that the appellant-defendant was their customer, selling his crops through the plaintiff’s/respondent’s firm. The appellant- defendant further asserted that the plaintiff-respondent and his family members, by taking undue advantage of his simplicity, obtained his signatures on blank and printed papers under the pretext that the same were required for entering his name in the records of the market Committee. The appellant-defendant had claimed that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. It was asserted that his signatures were taken several years earlier on blank papers, and since the defendant had ceased dealing with the plaintiff, a false suit was filed against him.

Defendant had prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.4,56,500/- along-with future and pendetlite interest at the rate of 18% per annum, till its realization as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD

5. Relief.”

5. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue Nos. 2 to 4 were disposed of as "not pressed." Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff along with interest. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has argued that the appellant-defendant is an illiterate person, and that the plaintiff-respondent took undue advantage of his illiteracy and simple nature by obtaining his signatures on blank documents. It was further asserted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly consider the fact that the plaintiff-respondent, being a commission agent, was in a dominant position, and that the Court wrongly relied upon the evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent.

7. On consideration of the evidence on record and the impugned judgments, I find that both the Cour