R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011

Date of Decision : May 02, 2011

Surinder Singh

....

Appellant

Vs.

Kaur Singh

....

Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

* * *

Present :

Mr. Hem Raj Kapil, Advocate

for the appellant.

* * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Defendant Surinder Singh, who was successful in the trial

court, but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, has filed the

instant second appeal.

Kaur Singh – plaintiff-respondent filed suit against defendant-

appellant for recovery of Rs.6,80,000/- alleging that on 21.04.2002,

defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote

and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1%

per month, but did not repay principal or interest amount. Accordingly, the

plaintiff claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as principal amount along with Rs.1,80,000/-

R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011

2

as interest amount.

The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. He denied

having borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff or having executed the

impugned pronote and receipt. The defendant alleged that there are material

alterations in the pronote as the loan amount in words and in figures and the

rate of interest were written later on with different ink. It was also pleaded

that the plaintiff is Commission Agent and the defendant wanted to sell his

crop at his shop. The plaintiff, on the pretext that list of customers had to be

prepared for presentation before Food and Supplies Department, obtained

signatures of the defendant on pronote and receipt. In the written statement,

the defendant also pleaded that he was to recover the price of his crop from

the plaintiff, who refused to pay the same. The impugned pronote and

receipt are without consideration. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, vide judgment

and decree dated 03.09.2010, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first

appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional

District Judge, Barnala, vide judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 and

thereby, plaintiff's suit has been decreed for recovery of principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum since the date of loan

till date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of

decree till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant

second appeal.

R. S. A. No. 1889 of 2011

3

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

case file.

In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself appeared in the

witness box and examined scribe of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt and

also one attesting witness thereof. All of them have broadly stated

according to the plaintiff's version. On the other hand, the defendant, while

appearing in the witness box, broadly stated according to his own version.

The defendant also examined official of Market Committee, who stated

about sale of produce by plaintiff at the shop of M/s Milkhi Ram Dev Raj,

whereas the defendant pleaded that he had been selling his produce at the

shop of plaintiff under the name and style of M/s Satpal Ruldu Ram. The

defendant also examined Clerk of the Court to produce record of other suit

relating to another pronote allegedly scribed by the same scribe Nirmal

Singh (PW-2). Inderjit Singh – handwriting expert examined by the

defendant opined that the two pronotes i.e. impugned pronote of the present

suit and other pronote by Mukhtiar Singh involved in the other suit have

been written by two different persons.

Plaintiff's case has been supported by scribe and attesting

witness of the pronote-cum-receipt. Moreover, the defendant, in the written

statement as well as in the witness box, admitted his signatures on the

impugned pronote-cum-receipt. This admission f