Shri Man Singh and Another vs Jai Krishan Finlease Pvt. Ltd.

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2010 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 24.02.2010 whereby the suit filed by the Plaintiff Jai Krishan Fin lease Pvt. Ltd. against the two Defendants had been decreed in its favor. It was a suit for recovery. It was initially filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as ''Code'') for recovery of Rs. 96,000/-. The application for leave to defend had been allowed. The suit was tried as a regular suit. The following four issues had been framed:

Whether the Defendant did not issue a cheque of Rs. 96,000/- to the Plaintiff? OPD

Whether the Defendant did not take any loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the Plaintiff? OPD

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount with interest? If so at what rate? OPP.

Relief.

Oral and documentary evidence had been led which includes the oral testimony of PW-1. In defense, the Defendant had examined himself as DW-1. The Plaintiff had, on oath, reiterated the averments made in the plaint; he had deposed that he had given a loan of Rs. 60,000/- to Defendant No. 1 on 05.10.2002; Defendant No. 2 who was the wife of Defendant No. 1 had stood as guarantor. Defendant No. 1 had issued a postdated cheque bearing No. 637605 dated 05.04.2005 for Rs. 96,000/- in favor of the Plaintiff company; cheque was dishonored as the account stood closed. The present suit was accordingly filed.

In the written statement, it had been contended that the documents filed by the Plaintiff did not bears the signatures of Defendant No. 1; he had not taken any loan from the Plaintiff; he had given the details of earlier transactions which had taken place between the parties; his submission was that promissory note purported to had been executed by the Defendants (Ex. PW-1/4) and the cheque (Ex. PW-1/5) did not bears signatures of Defendant No. 1; contention was that the promissory note and cheque are in different ink. These contentions have been dealt with by the two fact finding courts. The evidence had been scrutinized in detail both oral and documentary as well as the submissions propounded by learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants that this cheque related to an earlier transaction. The testimony of the witness had been adverted to draw a conclusion that the promissory note and the cheque did in fact bear the signatures of the Defendants/Appellants. The suit filed by the Plaintiff was decreed in the sum of Rs. 96,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

This finding was endorsed by the first appellate Court.

This Court is not a third fact finding Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is bounded within the parameters of Section 100 of the Code. Substantial questions of law have been phrased at page 13 in the body of the appeal. They read as under:

Whether the claim of the Respondent was not maintainable or not?

Whether the alleged documents submitted by the Plaintiff/ Respondent are genuine or not?

Whether in the absence of expert opinion the alleged documents, the findings are legal or not?

Whether the Respondent was authorized to file the suit or not?

Whether the leave to defend granted to the Appellant is rightly held or not?

Whether the submissions/defense witnesses of the Appellants as well as testimony of the Respondent was rightly observed and appreciated by the ld. Courts or not?

These are all facts based. This Court is not a third fact finding Court. No substantial question of law has arisen.

Appeal as also pending applications are dismissed in liming.