Paramjit Singh vs Sukhvinder Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Paramjit Singh has come in second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

Sukhwinder Singh respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,26,000/- against defendant Paramjit Singh alleging that the defendant had taken loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.09.2002 and executed pronote and receipt for the same. Defendant agreed to repay the amount with interest @ 2% per month, but did not repay the same.

Defendant inter alia pleaded that he had taken loan from Baba Farid Finance Company, Faridkot of which Balwinder Singh is a partner. At the time of taking of loan, Balwinder Singh got various printed papers/forms, pronote, receipt and stamp papers signed by the defendant. The said loan has been repaid by the defendant. However Balwinder Singh has got the suit instituted by fabricating the pronote and receipt, which was blank when signed by the defendant. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2008 decreed the suit of plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1 lac with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till date of decree of the trial Court and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree of trial Court till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that plaintiff Sukhwinder Singh is partner in Baba Farid Finance Company, Faridkot, of which Balwinder Singh is also a partner. It was also contended that wife of Balwinder Singh is sister of the plaintiff. However these facts would not depict that the pronote and receipt were blank when signed by the defendant and the same were fabricated. Defendant has admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. The plaintiff besides himself appearing as witness has examined both the attesting witnesses of the receipt who have supported the plaintiff''s case. The defendant has not led sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption arising u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the pronote was executed for consideration. Bald, self serving statement of defendant that pronote and receipt have been fabricated and were blank when signed by the defendant is not sufficient to rebut the said presumption.

Learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the plaintiff denied his relationship with Balwinder Singh and with the finance company. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff stated that he had advanced the loan to defendant on the asking of Rattan Chand PW2, but Rattan Chand PW/2 denied the same. However, evidence led by the parties has been appreciated by the Courts below. Both the courts below have to come to the concurrent finding that the defendant borrowed Rs. 1 lac from the plaintiff and executed the aforesaid pronote and receipt. The said concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below on appreciation of evidence cannot be reversed in second appeal merely on the basis of the aforesaid discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case.

As noticed hereinabove, both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and come to concurrent finding against the defendant. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner and does not warrant any interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.