Simarpal Singh vs Hakam Singh

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Appellant/Defendant - Simarpal Singh has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide which the appeal preferred by him against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barnala, decreeing the suit of Respondent/Plaintiff - Hakam Singh, for the recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/-, along with interest @9% per annum till the filing of the suit and future interest @6% per annum, was dismissed.

The Plaintiff filed suit for the recovery of the aforesaid mentioned amount on the ground that the said amount was obtained by Defendant as loan by executing pronote and receipt on 16.4.2004 and agreed to repay the same along with interest @1 1/2% per month and that he failed to repay the borrowed amount despite the tendering of the pronote itself. The suit was contested by the Defendant. In the written statement he admitted the advancement of this loan to him by the Plaintiff, but took up the plea that he repaid the amount to the Plaintiff on 2.12.2004 in the presence of the witnesses. Both the sides produced evidence in respect of their respective contentions.

After going through that evidence and hearing learned Counsel on their behalf, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant.

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Defendant that the lower Courts misread the evidence and recorded perverse finding to the effect that the Defendant was not able to produce evidence for proving the fact that he had repaid the borrowed amount along with interest. Secondary evidence was produced by the Defendant in support of his contention after obtaining the permission and the testimony of notary public, who attested the photo stat copy of the original receipt, was brushed aside on flimsy grounds.

The Defendant based his claim on the receipt alleged to have been signed by the Plaintiff after the receipt of amount so advanced to the him. The original receipt was never produced though as per the Rules of Pleadings the original receipt was required to be produced along with written statement. During the pendency of the suit application was filed for leading secondary evidence, which was allowed by the trial Court subject to the proving of loss. On the basis of the evidence, the specific finding was recorded by the lower Courts that the Defendant failed to prove the loss of the original, as the evidence produced by him regarding the loss of the receipt, was not found to be correct. In that eventuality, the secondary evidence was not admissible.

Concurrent findings were recorded by both the lower Courts. There is no misreading of evidence by those Courts nor findings recorded by them can be said to be perverse.

No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.

The same is, therefore, dismissed.