IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA NO.260 OF 2012

DATE OF DECISION : 19

TH

OCTOBER, 2012

Karam Singh

…. Appellant

Versus

Harbhajan Singh

…. Respondent

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

* * * *

Present :

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellant.

* * * *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

Defendant-Karam Singh having lost in both the Courts below

has filed this second appeal.

Respondent/plaintiff-Harbhajan Singh filed suit against

defendant-appellant alleging that on 02.11.2001, the defendant borrowed

`6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest

@1.56% per month and executed pronote and receipt, but the defendant

failed to repay the loan and interest. Accordingly plaintiff claimed recovery

of `6,00,000/- as principal amount and `2,67,960/- as interest.

The defendant broadly denied the plaint averments. Defendant

denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed

the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. The defendant alleged that his father

had been selling his agricultural produce through commission agent M/s.

Nahar Singh & Sons belonging to plaintiff’s son-in-law Gurcharan Singh

and his family. The defendant at the instance of his father used to borrow

RSA NO.260 OF 2012

- 2 -

small amounts of `20,000/- to `30,000/- from the said commission agent

who used to obtain signatures of defendant on blank pronotes and receipts.

The said pronote and receipt is being misused by the plaintiff by filing this

suit in connivance with Gurcharan Singh and Nahar Singh. Defendant’s

father had settled the account of the said commission agent and started

selling his produce through some other commission agent.

Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff’s suit for

recovery of principal amount of `6,00,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of pronote-cum-receipt till recovery. Feeling aggrieved,

defendant has filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

case file.

The plaintiff himself appeared in witness box and examined

both attesting witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt. They have broadly

stated according to plaintiff’s version.

On the other hand, defendant himself appeared in the witness

box and broadly stated according to his version. Lal Singh DW-2 stated

that he had got settled the account of defendant’s father with commission

agent M/s. Nahar Singh and sons. Lal Singh also stated about defendant’s

version as told to him by the defendant. Dr. Navdeep Gupta DW-3 is

document expert who opined that disputed signatures of defendant on

impugned pronote-cum-receipt did not mach with his standard signatures.

Plaintiff has led cogent evidence to prove his version. Besides

himself appearing in the witness box, plaintiff has examined both the

attesting witnesses of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt. They have

RSA NO.260 OF 2012

- 3 -

supported the plaintiff’s version. Statements of plaintiff and his witnesses

could not be impeached in their cross-examination. On the other hand, the

defendant in the written statement himself admitted his signatures on the

impugned pronote-cum-receipt by pleading that his signatures had been

obtained on blank pronote-cum-receipt by the aforesaid commission agent

and the said pronote-cum-receipt has been used by the plaintiff to file the

instant suit. Thus the defendant in the written statement itself categorically

admitted his signatures on the impugned pronote-cum-receipt.

Defendant’s evidence is not reliable. Except defendant’s own

oral testimony in support of his version, practically there is no other

evidence in support thereof. Lal Singh DW-2 has made hearsay statement

regarding version of the defendant as told to him by the defendant himself.

Consequently testimony of Lal Singh DW-2 in this regard is not admissible

in evidence and has no probative value. His statement that he was mediator

in settling the