Sampuran Singh vs Registered Firm M/s. Sadhu Ram Ishwar Chand

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.—Civil Suit No. 187 of 23.3.1985 was brought by Registered Firm M/s. Sadhu Ram Ishwar Chand (respondent herein) against Sampuran Singh (appellant herein) for the recovery of Rs. 3000/- together with interest. It was the pleaded case on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant-appellant had borrowed from it a sum of Rs. 3000/- on 1.7.1982 and had executed a bahi-entry in this respect. The entry was duly thumb marked by the defendant-appellant and it was also agreed that the defendant-appellant shall return the suit amount together with interest @2% p.m. or the amount together with interest would be adjusted against the sale proceeds arising out of the crops to be sold by defendant-appellant at the shop of the plaintiff-respondent in the month of November/December 1982. However, defendant-appellant did not bring his agricultural produce for sale at the shop of plaintiff-respondent and also did not return the loan amount together with accrued interest despite repeated demands and a registered notice. Responding to a notice, defendant-appellant appeared before the learned trial Court and filed a written statement denying all the averments constituting the plaint. He also came out with a plea that the plaintiff-respondent was running the business of a money lender without having a licence to run that business and, as such the suit at his instance was not maintainable.

In view of the diagonally opposing stand adopted by the parties, learned trial Court entered into inquisition into the controversy and to facilitate it, identified, from the pleadings of the parties, the areas of conflict in the form of issues relating to constitution of the plaintiff-firm, loan transaction, entitlement of the plaintiff-firm to recover the loan amount with interest and objection of the defendant-appellant with regard to non-maintainability of the suit it having been filed by the plaintiff-firm without there being a money lender''s licence in its favour.

After evidence of both the parties was concluded, learned trial Court afforded them an opportunity of hearing and perused the record, returned findings on all the issues favourable to plea of the plaintiff-respondent and hostile to the one put up on behalf of the defendant-appellant and vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.1985 decreed suit of plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of Rs. 3000/- together with future interest @6% p.a. to be calculated from 1.7.1982 but without any order as to costs. The learned trial Court, however, rejected prayer of plaintiff-respondent for award of interest till filing of the suit and till passing of the decree.

Finding himself unable to reconcile with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, defendant-appellant preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 39 of the Punjab Courts Act read with Section 96 and Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal, after contest, was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Still feeling himself aggrieved, the defendant-appellant has brought this Regular Second Appeal, which the plaintiff-respondent is contesting.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

Even though the appeal is pending since the year 1988, defendant-appellant has not cared to formulate and place on record substantial questions of law, if any, involved in the matter. Inability of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant in the matter is evident because the appeal does not involve any question of law, much less a substantial question, in so far as the learned trial Court after appreciation of evidence available before it, has returned a very definite finding that the plaintiff-respondent has been able to establish that defendant-appellant borrowed from it an amount of Rs. 3000/- vide bahi entry dated 1.7.1982 (Ex. P4). The plaintiff-respondent has also proved other bahi entries as Ex. P5, P6, P6/1, P7 and P8 confirming the bahi entry Ex. P4 dated 1.7.1982. The defendant-appellant has not brought any evidence to controvert this evidence of the plaintiff-respondent. Not only this, thumb impression of defendant-appellant on bahi entry Ex. P4 has also been proved as Ex. P1 by Yash Pal Chand Jain (PW1).

As regards payment of interest, learned trial Court did not agree with the plea of plaintiff-respondent and for that reason, did not allow interest on the suit amount from the date of loan till passing of the decree and allowed only future interest in terms of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The findings recorded by the learned trial Court have been examined by the learned Ist Appellate Court very minutely and very meticulously and it has been found that the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court do not admit of any interference. In this view of the situation, more particularly, in view of the fact that two courts have returned a concurrent finding in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against defendant-appellant and there being no substantial question of law involved in the matter, interference in Regular Second Appeal is found to be unwarranted. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.