R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M)

1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.1.2011

Ram Mehar

......Appellant

Versus

Rameshwar Dass and another

.......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr.S.S.Duhan, Advocate,

for the appellant.

****

SABINA, J.

Plaintiffs had filed suit for recovery against the defendant.

The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that plaintiff No.1 was the sole

proprietor of plaintiff No.2 and regular account books were

maintained by the firm. Defendant used to sell his food grains at the

commission agency of the plaintiffs. On 29.4.2003, defendant took a

loan of ` 2,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and agreed to repay the same

along with interest @ 2% per annum. A bahi entry was duly

executed by the defendant in his own hand in this regard. Entry was

also made in the cash book and ledger by the plaintiff firm. On

R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M)

2

16.6.2003, defendant again took loan of ` 11,000/- from the plaintiffs

for repair of his tractor. Due entries were made in bahi, cash book

and ledger maintained by the plaintiffs firm.

Defendant, on the other hand, denied the contentions in

the plaint. It was averred that the case of the plaintiffs was based on

forged entries. No loan had been taken by the defendant from the

plaintiffs.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree of recovery of `

3,41,000/- alongwith interest, as prayed for in

the plaint ? OPP.

2. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in its

present form? OPD

3. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file present

suit? OPD

4.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the

present suit? OPD

5. If so whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest

pendentelite and future interest at contractual rate of

13 % per annum? OPP

6. Relief.

The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court

vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2010. However, in appeal,

District Judge, Jind decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment

R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M)

3

and decree dated 9.10.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the

defendant.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of

the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and

deserves dismissal.

Plaintiffs had filed suit for recovery basing their claim on

the entries in the record maintained by them. The entries in the

record maintained by the plaintiffs were denied by the defendant.

Both the sides examined their respective hand writing experts in

support of their pleas. Yashpal Chand Jain, handwriting and finger

print expert, examined by the plaintiffs, gave his report that the

disputed signatures of the defendant matched with his standard

signatures, whereas, J.C. Singla, handwriting and finger print expert,

examined by the defendant, deposed that the questioned signatures

on the bahi entry did not match with the standard signatures of the

defendant. The expert examined by the defendant, in his cross-

examination, admitted that he had compared the disputed signatures

of the defendant with Ex.P-1/T, which were, in fact, Hindi translation

of bahi entry Ex.P-1 and not the specimen signatures of the

defendant. The expert further admitted that he was only a

matriculate and had not given any exam of International Criminology

School, though, he had attended the course. He had obtained

practical training from M.L.Singla, handwriting and finger print expert.

He was not having any degree or any qualification in this regard. In

R.S.A.No. 93 of 2011 (O&M)

4

these circumstances, learned District Judge rightly held that the

report submitted by expert J.C.Singla was liable to be ignored. The

plaintiffs had been successful in proving that the entrie