Jasmail Kaur and Others vs Sanjeev Kumar

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This is Defendants'' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit for recovery filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent was decreed, along with interest.

The decree of the trial court reads as under:

This suit coming for final disposal before me (Sh. Bhajan Ram) PCS, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bathinda in the presence of Sh. V.K. Goel, counsel for Plaintiff and Sh. Thana Singh counsel for the Defendants, it is ordered that the suit of the Plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed with costs for the recovery of Rs. 4,29,760/- alongwith pendent lite and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realisation. All the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the Plaintiff being the legal heirs of deceased Buta Singh.

This appeal came up for hearing on 10.05.2010 before this Court and the following order was passed:

Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the Appellants.

....

This is an appeal directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

In a suit for recovery the Appellants/Defendants pleaded that the pronote on the basis of which the same has been filed is forged. The loan was allegedly taken by Buta Singh, husband of Appellant No. 1 and father of Appellants No. 2 and 3, who has since died.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the expert witness produced found that the pronote had been filled up with different inks and this lent suspicion to the execution of the pronote.

The first Appellate Court while negating the plea of the Appellants has observed that the amount which was mentioned in figures has also been mentioned in words. It has further been qualified by mentioning the half of the amount which was in dispute. In this view of the matter, the first Appellate Court relied upon the pronote to decree the suit of the Respondent.

I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the Court below. Even if there would have been a manipulation in the pronote as is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the same could have been done where the amount has been mentioned in figures, but under no circumstances the same could be manipulated where the amount is mentioned in words which is further qualified by mentioning the half of the said amount. Thus, there does not appear to be any misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. The thumb impression of said Buta Singh appearing on the pronote has largely gone unexplained, hence this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments and the suit has been rightly decreed. The appeal therefore warrants dismissal in the absence of any substantial question of law.

At this stage, learned Counsel for the Appellants pleaded that he is willing to settle the matter in the event of some concession being given to him qua the interest component.

Notice of motion only qua the aforesaid limited extent for 31.8.2010.

10.5.2010

sd/- Mahesh Grover Judge

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, today, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has offered to forego future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the aforesaid offer is not accepted by learned Counsel for the Appellants as per his instructions from the Appellant.

This Court has already found this appeal without any merit vide order dated 10.05.2010, as aforesaid.

Thus, no substantial question of law arises.

Dismissed.