RSA No.605 of 2022 (O&M) S. No.118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.605 of 2022 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.03.2025 Joginder Singh .....Appellant Vs. Smt. Paramjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Suit for recovery of ₹6,50,000/- along with interest filed by plain'ff – Baldev Singh was decreed by the trial Court on 04.01.2017. Appeal filed by the defendant- Joginder Singh (appellant herein) against the legal heirs of Baldev Singh (respondent herein) has been dismissed by the Appellate Court of learned Addi'onal District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 23.09.2021. Against these concurrent findings, defendant has approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal. 2. In order to avoid confusion, the par'es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3. As per the case set up by the plain'ff- Baldev Singh, defendant being on friendly terms with him, had taken a friendly loan of ₹6,50,000/- from him (plainff) on 10.04.2010 for construc'on of his house. Plain'ff had paid the said amount to him in cash a8er withdrawing it from his bank account No.SB-AC- 2352/38 maintained in Ropar Central Bank Ltd., Ropar Branch at Morinda. In order to repay the amount, defendant had issued cheque No.498268 dated 15.12.2010 drawn on Bank of Punjab, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh for an amount of ₹6.5 lakhs. However, on presenta'on, it was returned by the Bank of Punjab on the ground that said Bank had merged with Centurion Bank of Punjab and, therea8er, merged with HDFC Bank. No Memo was delivered. Plain'ff then sent Page No.1 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.03.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.605 of 2022 (O&M) a legal no'ce dated 28.01.2011 to the defendant. Despite service of the no'ce, defendant failed to make the payment. 4. Defendant contested the suit by denying any friendly rela'ons with the plain'ff. He denied to have taken any loan of ₹6.5 lakhs from the plain'ff and claimed that no person will give such a huge amount without execu'on of any document. Defendant further pleaded that at some point of 'me, he had taken a small loan from one Mohan Singh of Village Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh and for repayment of the same, said Mohan Singh had taken security cheques from him (defendant). Though defendant had cleared the loan amount but cheques were not returned by Mohan Singh despite request and later on, Mohan Singh gave cheque No.498268 to plain'ff- Baldev Singh, on which basis, the present suit has been filed. It was also claimed that complaint under Sec'on 138 of the Nego'able Instrument Act filed by plain'ff against him (defendant) has already been dismissed. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. It may be no'ced here itself that during pendency of the suit, sole plain'ff had expired and his legal representa'ves were brought on record. 6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par'es was taken on record. The trial Court decreed the suit on 04.01.2017. Defendant filed an appeal against the legal heirs of deceased- plain'ff. However, his appeal was dismissed on 23.09.2021. 7. Assailing the afore-said concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspec've and ignored the important aspect that there was no document evidencing payment to the defendant- appellant or any friendly rela'ons between them and that cheque given to one Mohan Singh by the defendant, has been misused. 8. A8er considering submission of counsel for the appellant at length, and a8er perusing the judgments passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal. Page No.2 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.03.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.605 of 2022 (O&M) 9. It was no'ced by the First Appellate Court that as per the specific case of the plain'ff, he had withdrawn the amount of ₹6.5 lakhs from his account maintained in Ropar Central Coopera've Bank, Morinda on 10.04.2010 and then paid the said amount in cash to the defendant. Said case of the plain'ff was duly supported by the tes'mony of DW2 - Dilraj Singh, Branch Manager of the Bank, who proved cheque Ex.DW2/1, the statement of Accounts Ex.DW2/2 and cer'ficate Ex.DW2/3 indica'ng that amount of ₹6.5 lakhs had been withdrawn by plain'ff- Baldev Singh from his own account on 10.04.2010. Thus, the case of the plain'ff that a8er withdrawing the amount from his account, he had paid the same to defendant was supported by said evidence. 10. It was further no'ced by the Courts below that tes'mony of PW1- Harmanjit Singh not only proved the friendly rela'ons between plain'ff- Baldev Singh and defendant Joginder Singh but also proved that amount of ₹6.5 lakhs was paid by plain'ff- Baldev to defendant- Joginder in the presence of this witness i.e. PW1. 11. S'll further, it was no'ced that cheque No.498268 dated 15.12.2010 Ex.P2 was issued by defendant in the name of the plain'ff for ₹6.5 lakhs. Defendant failed to prove his stand that he had given the said cheque as a security cheque to Mohan Singh. He could not prove any transac'on with Mohan Singh. He could not prove that said Mohan Singh had any rela'onship or connec'on whatsoever with plain'ff- Baldev Singh. Not only this, as per defendant, he had already paid the small loan amount of ₹10,000/- taken by him from Mohan Singh to said Mohan Singh. It is not explained by the defendant that in case he had already returned the loan amount to Mohan Singh, then why he had not taken back security cheque from him and in case of refusal, why he did not file any complaint against said Mohan Singh, in case the cheque was misused. 12. Not only above, prior to filing the suit, plain'ff had served a legal no'ce dated 28.01.2011 upon the defendant. In case, the contents of the legal no'ce were incorrect, defendant would have responded to the same immediately. However, he did not give any reply to this legal no'ce and so, Page No.3 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.03.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.605 of 2022 (O&M) adverse inference is liable to be drawn against defendant to the effect that stand taken by him is not correct. 13. The dismissal of the complaint under Sec'on 138 of the NI Act, which was filed by Baldev- plain'ff cannot give any advantage to the appellant- defendant, as the criminal complaint is to be proved on the standard of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, whereas the civil suit is to be decided on the standard of ‘preponderance of evidence’. 14. In view of the afore-said discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below. There is no scope for any interference. As such, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. March 11, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No.4 out of 4 pages RENU 2025.03.12 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh