Charanji Lal vs Aggarwal Shoe Company, Vir Inder Road, Moga

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

This is a defendant''s second appeal and arises out of the following facts :

The plaintiffrespondent Messrs Aggarwal Shoe Company, through its partner Virinder Kumar, filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2600/ taken on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 12.1.1977 (Ex.D1) against appellant Charanji Lal. The appellant having admitted its execution contended that he repaid a sum of Rs. 2400/ along with interest upto 17.8.1977 and that Virinder Kumar had issued a receipt Exhibit D1 in token of having received the said amount. An objection was also taken that the plaintiff''s firm was not a registered one although it was admitted that Virinder Kumar was its partner.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :

Whether the plaintiff is a registered firm ? OPP

Whether the defendant has paid Rs. 2400/ on account of principal and interest on 17.8.1977 to Virinder Kumar ? OPD

Relief.

The learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent whereas issue No. 2 was decided against the defendant appellant. As a result of the findings the suit was decreed for Rs. 2600/ with costs. An appeal was taken by Charanji Lal to the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, who endorsed the findings of the trial Court that the receipt Exhibit D1 was not a genuine documents and, as such, had been rightly discarded. It was also found that as the subjectmatter of the dispute was less than Rs. 3000/ an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was competent only on a question of law and as no question of law was involved in the case the appeal was liable to be dismissed on this score as well. The present second appeal has been filed by Chiranji Lal.

The appeal was admitted on 18th April, 1980 on the strength of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ganpat v. Smt. Ram Devi and others, AIR 1978 Punjab and Haryana 137.

I have gone through the record as also the judgments of the courts below. The learned trial Court has found that the receipt with regard to the re payment was a fabricated one. This finding of fact recorded by the trial Court was thereafter endorsed by the lower appellate Court. The additional reason for the dismissal of the appeal at the hands of the lower appellate Court was that the appeal was not maintainable. It is thus clear that the lower Appellate Court had gone into the merits of the controversy in addition to the question of the maintainability of the appeal. Twentytwo years have gone by since the suit was filed for the recovery of a paltry amount. Leaving technicalities aside, I am of the opinion that this litigation must end. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below are accordingly endorsed without going into the legal issue raised.

Dismissed.