Modan Singh v. M/S Kumar Chand Janak Raj

IN T

Modan Singh

M/s Kumar Cha Janak Raj (dece

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

Pre judgment and d Judge (Fast Tr appellant was di passed by the le Brief Facts

2.

for recovery of amount and ₹1, plaintiff that th THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

VERSUS

and Janak Raj, through ased) through LRs

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for th r. Prince Goyal, Advocate and r. Vishwjeet Singh, Advocate for -.-

ANNU,J. esent Regular Second Appeal decree dated 24.03.2015 passed ack Court), District Bathinda, ismissed by upholding the judgm arned Additional Civil Judge (Se e brief facts of the case are that a sum of ₹4,62,000/–, comprisi 62,000/– being the interest accr he plaintiff-firm being a sole p

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-4966-2015 (O&M) ate of Decision : 11.09.2025 ....Appellant ….Respondent DEEP PANNU he appellant. r the respondent. has been filed challenging by the learned Additional Dist whereby the appeal filed by ment and decree dated 11.08.202 enior Division), Talwandi Sabo. the plaintiff/respondent filed a ing ₹3,00,000/– being the princi rued thereon. It was pleaded by proprietorship concern had lent

- trict suit ipal

amount of ₹3,0 his household p agreed to pay in further pleaded plaintiff on the signatures on th despite repeated loan amount, wh

3.

Up defendant subm action. It was f lending without the suit was bar proprietorship c proprietor is not that the defenda executed any pr receipt were sta alleged that the of the plaintiff recovery on the ₹4,00,000/– from When the limita plaintiff, in col 0,000/– in cash to the defendan purposes in the presence of w nterest on the said amount at th that the defendant executed a p same date in lieu of having rec he said pronote and receipt in th d requests made by the plaintiff hich necessitated the filing of the on notice, the defendant appe mitted that the suit is not mainta further contended that the plain t obtaining the requisite license. rred by limitation. It was also al concern but an unregistered pa t a proper person to file the pres ant had ever borrowed a sum of ronote or receipt in favour of the ated to be forged and fabricated attesting witness of the pronote and earlier, on 04.06.2010, the e basis of a pronote and receip m the defendant, but no suit wa ation for filing the suit on the ba llusion with his brother Satpal

nt-Modan Singh on 10.03.2010 witness Satpal. The defendant h he rate of 1.5% per month. It w pronote and receipt in favour of ceived the suit amount and put he presence of witnesses. Howev f, the defendant failed to repay e present suit. eared and contested the suit. T ainable and is without any cause ntiff is doing the work of mon The defendant further pleaded t leged that the plaintiff is not a s artnership firm, and therefore, sent suit. It was specifically den f ₹3,00,000/– on 10.03.2010 or h e plaintiff. The alleged pronote d documents. The defendant furt e, namely Satpal, is the real brot said Satpal had issued a notice pt dated 14.07.2008 for a sum as filed on the basis of that prono asis of the said pronote expired, l, forged the present pronote a

- for had was his ver, e of ney that sole nied had ther ther for m of

receipt against t for.

4.

On framed the follo

¶1alo

¶2form

3. OP

4.

5.

5.

In witness of the a the plaintiff fi fingerprint expe original pronote the Rokar Bahi 2012–13 as Ex Ex.P-6, Punjabi Ex.P7 to Ex.P10

6.

In record a copy of

the defendant. On these premise n the basis of the pleadings of owing issues: Whether the plaintiff is en ng with interest from the defend Whether the present suit is m? OPP Whether no cause of action PD Whether the suit of the plaint Relief. order to prove his case, the p alleged pronote and receipt, as P irm, appeared as PW2. Anil ert, was examined as PW3. T e and receipt dated 10.03.2010 as Ex.P3, photocopies of the B .P-4, P-5, P-5/A and Ex.P5/B, i translation of Bahi Khata for 0, and thereafter closed his evide rebuttal, the defendant examine f the legal notice, Ex.D1, and the

es, dismissal of the suit was pray the parties, the learned trial Co ntitled to recover the suit amo dant? OPP s not maintainable in the pres n arose in favour of the plaint tiff is time barred? OPD plaintiff examined Satpal, attest PW1. Janak Raj, sole proprietor Kumar Gupta, handwriting The plaintiff placed on record as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, photocopy Bahi Khata for the years 2009-10 Punjab translation of Rokar B r the year 2099-10 to 2012-13 ence. ed himself as DW1 and placed ereafter closed his evidence.

- yed ourt ount sent tiff? ting r of y of 0 to Bahi 3 as

Findings of the

7.

evidence led by had been able t Court observed fabrication, exce issued by Advo the said legal no

8.

It w stands. On one pronote and rec took the plea tha by the plaintiff testimony of A proved that the specimen signa decreed the suit Findings of the

9.

Fee learned Addition Appellate Cour advancement o pronote and rec defendant had

10.03.2010 in h e Trial Court e learned trial Court after hearin them decreed the suit of the pla to prove on record due executio d that although the defendant h ept for placing on record the pho cate Subhash Chandra Garg, the otice had been issued with regard was further noticed that the de hand, in the written statement eipt, while on the other hand in at one blank pronote which was for filing the present suit. The Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting signatures appearing on the pr atures of the defendant. With t of the plaintiff. e First Appellate Court eling aggrieved, the defendant nal District Judge (Fast Track C rt categorically observed that f loan by examining PW1 Sa ceipt. PW1 deposed that he kn obtained cash loan of ₹3,00,0 his presence and had agreed to p

ng the parties and appreciating aintiff by observing that the plain on of the pronote and receipt. T had taken the plea of forgery otocopy of the legal notice allege e defendant had failed to show t d to the present pronote and recei efendant was taking contradict he denied his signatures upon n his deposition before the Court lying with Satpal had been misu e Court also placed reliance on g and fingerprint expert, who h ronote and receipt tallied with these observations, the trial Co t preferred an appeal before ourt), Bathinda. The learned Low t the plaintiff had duly prov atpal, the attesting witness of new both the parties and that 000/– from the plaintiff firm pay interest at the rate of 1.5%

- ntiff edly that ipt. tory t he used had ourt wer ved on

month. PW1 fur executed the pro

10.

proved that the a understanding t thereon. The wi brought on reco Singh matched w

11.

considered. The upon the plea th pronote, but exc issued by Advo to connect the p defendant had f the suit within appeal was dism

12.

Fee Regular Second

13.

Up the appeal. Submissions of

13.

courts below ha witnesses and h rther testified that after receiving onote and receipt in favour of the e Court observed that from the te amount was borrowed by the de the contents of the pronote, the itnesses had been cross-examine ord to discredit their testimony. T with the signatures appearing on e plea of forgery and fabrication e lower appellate Court noted hat earlier also some legal notice cept for producing a photocopy cate Subhash Chandra Garg, no present disputed documents with failed to show that the present d limitation. Concurring with th missed and the judgment and decr eling aggrieved, the appellant-d d Appeal. on notice, respondent appeared f learned counsel for the partie e learned counsel for the appell ad erred in relying upon the inc had ignored the defence of the ap

g the amount in cash, the defend e plaintiff in his presence. estimony of these witnesses it sto fendant from the plaintiff, and a e defendant had put his signatu ed at length, but nothing had b The specimen signatures of Mo n the disputed pronote and receip n raised by the defendant was a that although the defendant rel e had been issued regarding anot y of the said legal notice allege o cogent evidence had been brou h that earlier transaction. Thus, documents had been forged to br he findings of the trial Court, ree of the trial Court were uphel defendant has preferred the pres through his counsel and contes s lant/defendant argued that both credible testimony of the plainti ppellant. It was submitted that PW

- dant ood after ures een dan t. also lied ther edly ught ring d. sent sted iff's W1

Satpal, the attes brother of the p further argued t also taken the pl later on filled in was of no cons notice placed on was issued rega once the limitati pronote and rece

14.

On submitted that th loan had been a Satpal, who was defendant had statement but ad been obtained o admitted, the bu fabricated. No s record a photoc documents. It w Findings

15.

I ha record with thei discussed in det sting witness of the pronote and plaintiff and had every reason t that the defendant had denied hi lea that the disputed document w n by the plaintiff. Therefore, the t equence. It was further submitt n record by the defendant clearl arding some other pronote, but ion for filing a suit on the basis eipt was fabricated bearing the si n the other hand, learned cou here were concurrent findings of advanced by the plaintiff to the s duly examined and cross-exam taken contradictory stands den dmitting them during his depos on blank papers. It was submit urden was upon the defendant to such evidence had been led by t opy of one legal notice which h was thus prayed that the RSA be d ave heard the learned counsel fo ir assistance. The case rests upo tail by both the courts below. Th

d receipt, is none else but the r to depose in favour of him. It w is signatures on the receipt and h was blank at the time of signing testimony of the handwriting exp ted that the photocopy of the le ly showed that earlier also a not no action was taken thereon, of that pronote expired, the pres ignatures of the defendant. unsel for the respondent/plain f fact by both Courts below that defendant in the presence of PW mined. It was further argued that nying his signatures in the writ ition by saying that signatures h tted that once the signatures w prove that the documents had b the defendant except for placing had no connection with the dispu dismissed. or the parties and gone through on a factual matrix which has b here are concurrent findings of f

- real was had pert egal tice sent ntiff W1 tten had were een g on uted een

that the plaintif were executed i proved by both o

16.

Firstly, regardin brother of the p well settled that if otherwise tru examination, ye deposition rema receipt. Therefo

16.

Sec some other pro notice and faile fabricated to ov notice. It is trite are proved, the fabricated. Exce led. The courts assumptions.

17.

Leg signatures there forgery to estab handwriting exp disputed docum ff advanced a loan to the defen in lieu thereof, and that the sign oral and expert evidence. e two objections raised by the ng the related witness PW1 Satpa plaintiff does not by itself render t relationship of a witness is not ustworthy. The testimony of PW et nothing substantial could be ained consistent and corroborate ore, this objection does not hold m condly, regarding the legal notic onote. The defendant has only p ed to establish that the present vercome limitation. No witness e that once the signatures of the d burden shifts upon him to show ept for the photocopy of the no below have rightly held that gally also, once the execution eon are proved, the burden lie blish the same. The defendant h pert's report has corroborated the ments. Thus, the concurrent find

ndant, that the pronote and rece natures of the defendant were d e defendant deserve considerati al. Merely because Satpal is the r r his testimony untrustworthy. I t a ground to discard his testimo W1 was subjected to lengthy cro elicited to shake his version. ed the execution of the pronote merit. ce issued earlier in connection w produced a photocopy of the s disputed pronote and receipt w s was examined to prove the s defendant on the present docume w that the documents are forged otice, no cogent evidence has b the plea of forgery rests on m of a document is admitted or s heavily upon the party alleg has not discharged this burden. T e signatures of the defendant on dings of fact recorded by both

- eipt duly ion. real It is ony, oss-His with said were said ents d or een mere

courts below ar interference in s Conclusion

18.

Acc judgments and below, the pres findings of both

19.

Pen

September 11, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh re based on proper appreciation second appeal. cordingly, finding no illegality decrees dated 11.08.2014 and sent Regular Second Appeal is h the Courts below are upheld nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

n of evidence and do not call y or perversity in the impugn

24.03.2015 passed by the Cou hereby dismissed. The concurr stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- for ned urts