Sukhdev Singh v. Ajit Singh

IN T

Sukhdev Singh Ajit Singh

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr MANDEEP PA

1.

appellant again below, i.e the Additional Civil

24.10.2024 pass the plaintiff was Brief Facts

2.

comprising of ₹ rate of 12% per defendant had b for which a pro receipt bore the witnessed by Su THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

VERSUS

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for -.-

ANNU,J. e present Regular Second Appea st the concurrent findings of judgment and decree dated 1 l Judge (Senior Division), Moga sed by the learned District Judg s decreed. e plaintiff–respondent instituted ₹10,00,000/– as principal amoun r annum against the defendant– borrowed a sum of ₹10,00,000/– onote and receipt were duly ex signatures of the defendant, we ukhdev Singh son of Jangir Sin

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2811-2024 (O&M) ate of Decision : 10.09.2025

....Appellant

....Respondents DEEP PANNU r the appellant. al has been filed by the defenda fact recorded by both the Cou

15.11.2023 passed by the learn a and the judgment and decree da ge, Moga, whereby the suit filed a suit for recovery of ₹13,60,00 nt and ₹3,60,000/– as interest at –appellant. It was pleaded that – from the plaintiff on 07.05.20 xecuted at Moga. The pronote a ere attested by a Notary Public ngh and Lakhvir Singh son of J

- ant– urts ned ated d by 00/– 019, and and

Singh, residents the defendant w mensum.

3.

the claim of the were forged and he is a small far borrowed ₹5,00 the same was re obtained the sig pasting his phot copy of the sam was signed by assured him tha first week of M along with int whereupon the

29.07.2013 and in the register o demanded retur that the same w misusing the sa dated 07.05.201 of land belongin

s of village Talwandi Bhangerian would repay the amount along w e defendant contested the suit a e plaintiff. It was alleged that t d fabricated and without conside rmer residing abroad with his fam 0,000/– from the plaintiff agains enewed on 21.07.2016 for ₹6,8 gnatures of the defendant on ano tographs thereon on the pretext me had to be kept as proof. The de him believing that the same m at it would not be misused. The May 2019, the defendant repaid terest to the plaintiff at the e plaintiff returned the origin

21.07.2016. At that time the pl of an advocate as proof of retu rn of the blank signed pronote was misplaced and would be ret id blank paper, the plaintiff has 9 to falsely claim a sum of ₹10, ng to the defendant.

n, District Moga. It was agreed t with interest at the rate of 1½% and filed written statement deny the pronote and receipt in quest eration. The defendant pleaded t mily and that on 29.07.2013 he h t a pronote and receipt. Thereaf 80,000/–. At that time, the plain other pronote and receipt paper t that as per new rules of Punja efendant pleaded that the said pa might be required, and the plain further stand taken was that in d the entire amount of ₹6,80,00 District Courts Complex, Mo nal pronotes and receipts da laintiff also obtained his signatu urn of the amount. The defend and receipt but the plaintiff sta turned later. It was alleged that s fabricated the pronote and rece ,00,000/– and to grab a small pi

- that per ying tion that had fter, ntiff r by ab a aper ntiff 00/– oga, ated ures dant ated t by eipt

4.

On

¶1pro

2.

¶3con

4. OP

¶5suit

¶6of C

7.

5.

In Singh (attesting Singh S/o Jeet S and himself PW in question as E

6.

De and reiterated Ex.DW1/A. H

29.07.2013 as E Ex.D3 and Ex.D and evidence wa

n the basis of pleadings following Whether the plaintiff is ent onote and receipt dated 07.05.201 Whether the suit of the plaint Whether the alleged pr nsideration and is forged and fab Whether the plaintiff is stop PD Whether the plaintiff has no t? OPD Whether the present suit is n Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD Relief. his evidence the plaintiff exa g witness of pronote and receip Singh (attesting witness of prono W-3. The Plaintiff has proved on x.P1 and Ex.P2. fendant also stepped into witne the entire version of his w He also proved on record or Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, original prono D4 and a photopy of passport bea as led by both the parties.

g issues were framed:- itled for recovery, on the basis 19, as prayed for? OPP tiff is not maintainable? OPD ronote and receipt is with bricated document? OPD pped by his own act and condu o cause of action to file the pres not properly valued for the purp amined Sukhdev Singh S/o Jan pt in question) as PW-1, Lakh ote and receipt in question) as PW record original pronote and rece ess box as DW-1 to prove his c written statement in his affida riginal pronote and receipt da ote and receipt dated 21.07.2016 aring stamps as Ex.D5 to D8.

- s of hout uct? sent pose ngir hvir W-2 eipt case avit ated 6 as

Findings of the

7.

appreciating the was observed th receipt in his wr admitted his sig on Exhibits P1 explanation tha photographs app might be copies receipt were kno had ever been fi

8.

genuine and law had been broug without conside Reliance was pl Civil Court Cas against the plai denial by the de

9.

that he had bor repaid ₹6,80,00 defendant had e Trial Court e learned trial Court, after hear e evidence on record, decreed th hat although the defendant had d ritten statement, however, when gnatures on Exhibits D1 to D4 a and P2 i.e. the disputed pron at the same were signed in b pearing thereon were his, though s. The defendant admitted that own to him and were on visiting iled against the witnesses or the p e learned trial Court held that wful execution of the pronote an ght on record by the defendant eration or were fraudulently prep laced upon Lali Devi and others ses 275 (P&H) wherein it was he intiff or any other person for m fendant is not sufficient to defea e learned trial Court also consid rrowed money twice earlier aga 0/– in May 2019. It was observ monetary dealings with the p

ing the counsel for the parties a he suit of the plaintiff with costs denied execution of the pronote a n subjected to cross-examination and further admitted his signatu note and receipt, though with blank. He also admitted that h he attempted to suggest that th the witnesses on the pronote a g terms with him, but no compla plaintiff regarding alleged forger t the defendant had admitted nd receipt in question. No evide to prove that the documents w pared by misusing any blank pap s vs. Jai Singh and others, 2012 eld that where there is no compla misusing the signatures, mere o at the claim of the plaintiff. dered the defence of the defend ainst pronotes and receipts and h ved that this itself showed that plaintiff and was in the habit

- and s. It and n he ures hey and aint ry. nce were ers. 2(3) aint oral dant had

borrowing mone a blank pronote

10.

Notary Public a that the pronote who were cross plaintiff was dec Findings of the

11.

Moga, reiteratin an application u statement to cla the said applicat and receipt or i allowed, it woul

12.

failed to lead an signed papers. I his signatures o him to prove th miserably failed had borrowed so them was exami also upheld, hol earlier, he could ey from him. Therefore, the argu and receipt was not believable. e objection of the defendant that and the Deed Writer was also r e and receipt were proved throu s-examined and withstood scru creed. e Lower Appellate Court e defendant preferred an appeal ng the same defence. During pen under Order VI Rule 17 CPC arify his admission. The learned tion observing that there was no in the register of the Notary Pu ld not serve any purpose except t e learned lower Appellate Court ny cogent evidence to prove the It was categorically observed tha on the pronote and receipt Exhib hat the same were the result of d to discharge. The Court noticed ome amount from his commissio ined to support his case. The fin lding that if the plaintiff was in d also advance ₹10,00,000/– as a

ument that the plaintiff had misu t the plaintiff had not examined rejected by the trial Court, hold ugh the plaintiff and his witnes utiny. Accordingly, the suit of l before the learned District Jud ndency of the appeal, he also fi seeking amendment of the writ d lower Appellate Court dismis denial of signatures on the pron ublic, and even if amendment w to delay the matter. t further held that the defendant h e plea of fraud or misuse of bla at once the defendant had admit bit P1, the onus was entirely up forgery or cheating, which he h d that the defendant alleged that on agent and relative, but neither nancial capacity of the plaintiff w n a position to advance ₹6,80,00 lleged.

- used ding sses dge, filed tten ssed note was had ank tted pon had t he r of was 00/–

13.

defendant in de dismissed and th

14.

Fee below, defendan Findings

15.

Hav judgments of bo Court finds that appreciation of admitted his si photographs aff admitted, the en consideration o defendant has f plea.

16.

Bot forgery is an a witnesses has su plaintiff has also The argument th been rejected as

17.

Thi findings of fact in exercise of se e learned Appellate Court de etail and found no merit in th he judgment and decree of the tri eling aggrieved by the concur nt-appellant has preferred the pre ving heard learned counsel for th oth the Courts below as well as th t the findings recorded by the C evidence and do not suffer from ignatures on the disputed pro fixed thereon. Once execution ntire onus was on the defendant t or were misused blank papers failed to bring on record any re th the Courts below have rightly afterthought and has no found upported the case of the plaintif o been established from the prev hat the Notary Public or Deed W s the pronote and receipt stood pr is Court does not find any err recorded by the Courts below. econd appellate jurisdiction.

ealt with all contentions of hem. The appeal was accordin ial Court were affirmed. rrent findings of both the Cou esent Regular Second Appeal. he appellant and having perused he evidence referred to therein, t Courts below are based upon pro m any infirmity. The defendant onote and receipt as well as of the pronote and receipt sta to prove that the same were with . Except for bald assertions, eliable evidence to substantiate y held that the defence of fraud a dation. The testimony of attest ff and the financial capacity of vious dealings between the part Writer was not examined has righ roved by cogent evidence. ror or perversity in the concurr No ground is made out to interf

- ngly urts this oper has his nds hout his and ting ties. htly rent

Conclusion

18.

Con dismissed in lim interference by Courts below ar

19.

Pen

September 10, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh nsequently, finding no merit in mine, as no arguable points h this Court. The concurrent jud re well reasoned, based on eviden nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

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

n the present appeal, the same have been raised so as to warr dgments and decrees passed by nce and do not call for interferen stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- e is rant