M.P. Sharma vs Chaman Lal Kaul

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2010 which has endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 25.02.2010 whereby the suit of the plaintiff Chaman Lal Kaul against the Defendant M.P. Sharma had been decreed in the principal sum of Rs. 30,000/- with interest of Rs. 9,000/-; decree of Rs. 39,000/- was awarded in favour of the plaintiff/ Respondent.

As per the factual matrix, on 25.05.1992 the Defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 30,000/- @ 1% per annum to be payable on demand. Inspite of demand, the Defendant had not repaid the amount. Suit was filed.

In the written statement, the contention was that the pronote dated 25.05.1992 relied upon by the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document; the Defendant did not take any loan from the plaintiff nor did he sign the said document; Defendant had not received any amount from the plaintiff. It was further stated that the Defendant had signed this pronote after 1993 while he was residing at Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi as he had shifted to Badarpur in February, 1993. It was contended that the plaintiff is running private committee groups and is a broker of chit fund companies; he had got subscribed a chit fund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from R.H. Chit Fund in the month of August, 1992 and two committees of Rs. 25,000/- each in the month of September, 1992 in the name of M/s Amit Enterprises. Another chit of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- of the wife of the Defendant was subscribed in the name of M/s Amit Enterprises as also further chits, details of which have been mentioned in the written statement. Submission was that the plaintiff used to obtain the signatures/writings of the persons with whom he was doing business on blank papers and the pronote dated 25.05.1992 was one such document.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount? OPP.

Relief.

In order to prove his case, plaintiff has examined two witnesses and Defendant has examined three witnesses.

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and reiterated that the pronote dated 25.05.1992 (Ex. PW-1/1) was duly executed by the Respondent promising to pay on demand Rs. 30,000/- along with interest @ 1% per annum. PW-2 was also examined in chief. Defendant examined himself as DW-1. He proved on record the various transactions which the Defendant had with the plaintiff.

On the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before the trial court, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as aforenoted.

The impugned judgment had endorsed these findings.

This is a second appeal. Before this Court, it has been urged that substantial question of law has arisen as the impugned judgment has failed to appreciate the testimony of the witnesses of the parties in the correct perspective. Defendant No. 1 had categorically stated that he had shifted from Burari in 1992, his contention was that he had signed the pronote in 1993 after shifting from there but the perusal of the document Ex. PW-1/1 shows that the Defendant had signed while he was a resident of Burari; this evidence had not been correctly appreciated by the first appellate Court. This has raised a substantial question of law. The other substantial question of law have been framed on page 18-A and they read as under:

(i) That in March 1993 the Petitioner had shifted to D-840, Baba Colony, Petitioner never executed the promissory note in the year 1992 as alleged by the Respondent in his pleadings?

(ii) That the Respondent in his pleading has stated that the Petitioner had executed the promissory note in his favour in the year 1992 while he was residing in House No. E-20B, Gali Inder Marg, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi whereas the address written on the promissory note i.e D-840, Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi. That in the year 1992 the Petitioner had no residence address at Burari?

(iii) That in March 1993 the Petitioner had shifted to D-840, Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi and after purchasing a plot on 22.2.1993 got constructed the same and from 9th May 1994 the Petitioner shifted to his new premises? (Documentary proof and witnesses submitted in the court).

(iv) The alleged promissory note was executed by Petitioner at his aforesaid residence in the year 1994 when the Respondent had come to his residence to get executed the Chit Fund and Committee?

Arguments have been countered.

This is a second appeal. This Court is not a third fact finding Court. It can interfere with the findings of fact of the court below only if the same are perverse and on no other count. Both the courts below after a detailed scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence led by the respective parties had held that the defence of the Defendant is contrary; on the one hand in his written statement he had stated that he had signed on the pronote as a witness whereas in his cross-examination he had admitted that his signatures had been taken on blank papers. It is clear that the evidence of the parties had been appreciated in the correct perspective and the said finding does not call for any interference. No case of perversity has been made out. The Defendant/Appellant was clearly a confused man; even today in Court, he was not sure about his stand. On a specific query put by the Court, he has stated that he had signed this document in 1993. Perusal of the said document (Ex.PW-1/1) shows that on the said document date of 25.05.1992 had been mentioned at four places; it is difficult to imagine and conceive that a man would have signed a document admittedly executed on 25.05.1992 (and bears the date of 25.05.1992 at four different places) in the year 1993; the defence of the Defendant was sham and was rightly rejected by the two courts below. No substantial question of law has arisen.

Appeal as also pending applications are dismissed in limine.