RSA-258-2022

2023:PHHC:137061

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-258-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on: 09.10.2023

Date of decision: 19.10.2023

NIRMAL SINGH

..Appellants

Versus

M/S MADAN LAL AND SONS

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate

for the appellant.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1.

In this appeal, the correctness of the concurrent findings of the

fact arrived at by the Courts below is challenged by the defendant. The

Courts have decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,90,824.81/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of execution of pronote

and receipt till realization of decretal amount in favour of the respondent

(the plaintiff) and against the appellant.

2.

In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,

the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3.

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,42,521.98/- on

the basis of pronote, receipt dated 01.11.2011 and regular books of account

maintained by the firm. It is claimed that the respondent is running the

business of commission agent and the appellant used to sell his crop at their

shop. The plaintiff also maintains regular account books. The defendant

(appellant) while contesting the suit denied execution of pronote and receipt

MOHD AYUB

2023.10.20 16:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-258-2022

2023:PHHC:137061

-2-

and claimed that he had never borrowed Rs.6,00,000/-. It was stated that the

respondent being a commission agent used to obtain blank signatures from

the farmers and the alleged pronote and receipt is a forged and fabricated

document.

4.

In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined PW-1 Abdul

Gaffar, marginal witness of the pronote, PW-2 Sh. Gurjivan Singh other

marginal witness of the pronote and receipt, PW-3 Sh. Vinod Kumar,

accountant of the plaintiff-firm, who is writing the account books, PW-4 Sh.

Madan Lal, proprietor of the plaintiff-firm.

5.

On the other hand, the defendant appeared as DW-1.

6.

Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit.

7.

This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

appellant and with his able assistance perused the paperbook.

8.

The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that

the respondent being a commission agent was in a dominating position vis-

a-vis the appellant who is a farmer. It is further contended that the

respondent Sh. Madan Lal, proprietor of the firm in the cross-examination

has failed to disclose the names of the farmers from whom he had received

Rs.6,00,000/- and since all the other payments were made through cheque,

therefore, the Court must draw inference that the plaintiff failed to prove his

case. It is further contended that failure of the plaintiff to produce Income

Tax Return, is sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the plaintiff

and therefore, the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit. It is further

contended that the consideration amount has not been proved and therefore,

the pronote and receipt is a mere paper transaction.

9.

This Court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the appellant.

MOHD AYUB

2023.10.20 16:46

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.

RSA-258-2022

2023:PHHC:137061

-3-

10.

The scope of interference by the High Court in regular second

appeal is regulated by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. This

provision came up for interpretation before the Supreme Court in Randhir

Kaur Vs. Prithi Pal Singh, 2019 (17) SCC 71, Dhanpat Vs. Sheo Ram

(Deceased) through LRs and others, 2020(16) SCC 209 and Avtar Kaur

Vs. Bimla Devi, 2021(13) SCC 816. Consistently, it has been held that

unless there is an error in law or procedure and not merely on a question of

fact the Court cannot interfere merely because the High Court thought that

another view could be a better view. In that context, thi