RSA No.1765 of 2010

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1765 of 2010

Date of Decision: 06.05.2010.

Gurdev Singh

.……Appellant

Versus

Manjit Kaur and others

……Respondents

Coram:-

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

Present: Mr. H. S. Baath, Advocate for the appellant.

L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

This is second appeal by defendant-Gurdev Singh, having

remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

Suit was filed by Nachhatar Singh (since deceased and

represented by respondents herein) against appellant -Gurdev Singh

for recovery of Rs.1,32,000/- under Order 37 of the Code of Civil

Procedure alleging that the defendant on 27.03.2004 borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for

the same and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of

2% per month, but the defendant did not repay any amount. The

plaintiff claimed interest for pre-suit period at the rate of 1% per

month only amounting to Rs.32,000/-, in addition to the principal

amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

The defendant inter alia pleaded that he had in fact taken

loan of Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff on 14.07.2003 for which

defendant's signatures were obtained on blank pronote and receipt.

The defendant repaid the said amount with interest to the plaintiff by

RSA No.1765 of 2010

-2-

depositing the amount in plaintiff's account on 31.12.2003, but the

plaintiff told that the pronote and receipt were not traceable and

would be returned after tracing the same, but he did not return the

same. The defendant denied having taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/-

from the plaintiff on 27.03.2004. The defendant also denied the

execution of pronote and receipt for the same.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda vide

judgment and decree date 17.03.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for

recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs along with interest at the rate of

8% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till date of filing

of suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit

till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been

dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court,

Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009. Feeling

aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the

defendant.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

defendant was not and could not be in need of huge amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to meet his household expenses because defendant is

a senior Government Official having good salary. The contention is

defeated by defendant's own plea that earlier he had taken loan of

Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff. It was contended on behalf of

defendant-appellant that said loan of Rs.50000/- had been taken for

getting the defendant's daughter admitted in computer course. If the

RSA No.1765 of 2010

-3-

defendant being Senior Government Official having handsome salary

could not meet the expenses of his daughter's computer course and

needed loan for the same, it cannot be said that the defendant could

not be in need of loan of Rs.1,00,000/- which he borrowed from the

plaintiff on 27.03.2004.

Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the

plaintiff admitted that on 19.03.2004, the plaintiff had transferred

Rs.4,90,000/- in defendant's account for purchasing some

property,but when the deal did not materialise, the defendant repaid

Rs.4,15,000/- by transfering the same to the plaintiff's account and

repaid the balance amount in cash to the plaintiff on 26.03.2004 and,

therefore, on the very next day i.e 27.03.2004, the defendant would

not have taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/- because if the defendant's

intentions were dishonest, he could withdraw any amount out of the

amount of Rs.4,90,000/- transferred to defendant's account by the

plaintiff. The contention is complete