IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 117 RSA-1412-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2025 RAJNEESH KUMAR .... Appellant VERSUS GURNAIB SINGH .... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant. ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL) 1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated 08.05.2017 and 04.02.2020 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, respectively. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of ₹2,00,200 (rupees two lakh and two hundred) i.e. ₹1,30,000 (rupees one lakh and thirty thousand) being the principal amount and ₹70,200 (rupees seventy thousand and two hundred) being the interest accrued thereon. It was averred in the plaint that on 10.05.2008 the defendant-respondent, namely, Gurnaib Singh borrowed a sum of ₹1,30,000 (rupees one lakh and thirty thousand) in cash from the plaintiff-appellant at Goniana Mandi for domestic purpose with a stipulation that he would repay the same along with interest @ 1.5% per month. It was further the case that the defendant-respondent executed a pronote and a AMAN JAIN 2025.01.29 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 117 RSA-1412-2021 (O&M) -2- receipt dated 10.05.2008 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant in the presence of marginal witnesses. The pronote and the receipt were scribed by Mahesh Kumar son of Nauhar Chand at the instance of the defendant-respondent and were signed by Dilawar Singh and Raj Kumar. Since the defendant- respondent failed to repay the amount, hence the civil suit. 3. The defendant-respondent filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merit it was denied that the amount was borrowed by the defendant-respondent on 10.05.2008. It was further averred that the pronote and the receipt were forged and fabricated documents having been prepared by the plaintiff-appellant in connivance with the witnesses who were his stock witnesses. It was further the case that Nauhar Chand grandfather of the plaintiff-appellant and Bachan Ram were running a business of commission agents under the name and style of M/s Bachan Ram Nauhar Chand at Goniana Mandi and the defendant-respondent used to sell his produce through the said commission agents regarding which J- Forms were also issued sometimes by Mahesh Kumar under his signatures and sometimes Nahaur Chand and Mahesh Kumar used to obtain signatures of the defendant-respondent on various blank printed forms and the defendant-respondent in good faith had signed the said blank printed forms. Later due to a dispute the defendant-respondent stopped selling his crop through the commission agents and the instant suit was filed on the basis of blank documents which were misused for fabricating the pronote and the receipt. AMAN JAIN 2025.01.29 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 117 RSA-1412-2021 (O&M) -3- 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount, as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Relief. 5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.05.2017 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.2020. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It is urged that the pronote and the receipt were duly proved on the record by the plaintiff-appellant and that the witnesses stated that the defendant-respondent had signed the pronote and the receipt after taking the loan amount. Learned counsel would further contend that the defendant-respondent was no stranger as per his own averments and had dealings with the plaintiff-appellant. 7. Heard. 8. In the present case learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the payment of the loan was duly proved by proving the AMAN JAIN 2025.01.29 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 117 RSA-1412-2021 (O&M) -4- pronote (Ex.P-1) and the receipt (Ex.P-2). Both the Courts concurrently found that the defendant-respondent had proved on record original J-Forms (Mark D-1 to D-11). When the said documents were put to the plaintiff- appellant, namely, Rajneesh Kumar (PW-2) he refused to identity the signatures of his father on the said documents. However, he admitted that the said documents belong to the firm of his father i.e. M/s Bachan Ram Nauhar Chand. There was no stand taken by the plaintiff-appellant that the said documents were forged and fabricated. It had further been observed by both the Courts that in the cross-examination of DW-2 i.e. the defendant- respondent himself, no questions were put nor even a single suggestion was made regarding the documents produced by the defendant-respondent. It was, hence, held that the defendant-respondent had proved that he used to sell his crop to M/s Bachan Ram Nauhar Chand. The Trial Court found a number of discrepancies in the pronote and the receipt. The line where the name of the plaintiff-appellant was mentioned had been written in a different ink. It is further to be noticed that no account books were produced by the plaintiff-appellant in support of his claim that the amount had been borrowed by the defendant-respondent. It is unbelievable that a commission agent would not be maintaining the regular books of accounts. In the absence of any cogent evidence, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts concerned. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises AMAN JAIN 2025.01.29 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 117 RSA-1412-2021 (O&M) -5- for determination in the present case. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 28.01.2025 (ALKA SARIN) Aman Jain JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: Yes/No AMAN JAIN 2025.01.29 09:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment