R.S.A. No.4141 of 2015 (O&M)

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No.4141 of 2015 (O&M)

Date of decision: 29.02.2016

Mohan Lal and another

...Appellants

Versus

Gurmail Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:

Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate

for the appellant.

****

Jitendra Chauhan, J.

CM No.10049-C of 2015

For the reasons contained in the application, same is

allowed and delay of 6 days in re-filing the present appeal is

condoned.

Main Case

1.

This regular second appeal is directed against the

judgment and decree dated 16.01.2015, passed by the learned

Additional District Judge, Sangrur, (for short, the 'first Appellate

Court') whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant, against the

judgment and decree dated 20.01.2012, passed by the learned

ASHOK KUMAR

2016.03.22 10:25

I attest to the authenticity and

accuracy of this document

R.S.A. No.4141 of 2015 (O&M)

-2-

Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Sunam, (for short, the 'trial

Court'), has been dismissed.

2.

Brief facts of the present case are reads as under:-

“M/s Verma Trading Company, Dirba is

running a commission agency at Dirba and

Mohan Lal is the sole proprietor of the said

concern. The concern is an income tax assesse

and maintaining the regular account books.

Defendant had been selling his crop through

the plaintiff and the accounts were settled with

the defendant on 10.12.2005 and the entry to

this effect was made in the account books and

no amount was due towards each other and

defendant executed a receipt in favour of the

plaintiff. The defendant assured the plaintiff to

sell his crop and he obtained Rs.6,50,000/- from

the plaintiff as loan on 28.04.2007 and agreed

to return it with interest at the rate of 1.12% per

month and defendant executed a pronote and

receipt in favour of the plaintiff in

consideration of the loan amount. Till the filing

of the suit Rs.6,70,000/- are due against the

defendant.”

3.

On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the

learned Courts below have erroneously ignored the statement of

the clerk of the plaintiff, Sh. Harpal Singh, who regularly

maintained the accounts books and the report of the handwriting

ASHOK KUMAR

2016.03.22 10:25

I attest to the authenticity and

accuracy of this document

R.S.A. No.4141 of 2015 (O&M)

-3-

and finger print expert which clearly proves the signature of the

respondent over the pronote and the receipt. The learned

counsel further contends that the findings of the learned Trial

Court that the plaintiff has failed to examine the witnesses of the

pronote and receipt, is erroneous as there is no requirement of

law to attest the pronote and receipt by two marginal witnesses.

The learned counsel contends that the statement of the plaintiff

corroborated by statement of munim prove the execution of

pronote and receipt by the defendant.

4.

The learned counsel cites 'Arjinder Singh Vs. M/s

Virk Brothers and another', 2012(2) PLR 104 and 'Avtar

Singh (died) through LRs Vs. Dalip Singh (died) through

LRs.', 1993(2) RRR 527.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel and perused the

entire record on file.

6.

The learned Courts below have passed the judgments

and decrees after appraisal and appreciation of the oral as well as

documentary evidence. In his testimony, PW2-Harpal Singh, has

stated that the alleged amount was paid in his presence, but his

signature is not there over the pronote and the receipt. Therefore,

his statement cannot be relied upon. As far as the absence of the

respondent at the time of execution of the pronote and the receipt

ASHOK KUMAR

2016.03.22 10:25

I attest to the authenticity and

accuracy of this document

R.S.A. No.4141 of 2015 (O&M)

-4-

is concerned, DW1-Ramphal Singh, the attesting witness, who

scribed the alleged pronote and receipt records that the

respondent was not present at the relevant time and the pronote

was not signed in his presence. Further, the appellant has not

exa