RSA No. 3848 of 2013 (O&M) 1 RSA No. 4869 of 2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 222 RSA No. 3848 of 2013 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :- 19.03.2025 Reserved on 06.03.2025. Sukhpal Singh ...Appellant Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent RSA No. 4869 of 2016 (O&M) Paramjit Kaur ...Appellant Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present:- Mr. MJS Bedi, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (ORAL) I. Brief facts of the case :- 1. With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, two connected Regular Second Appeals shall stand disposed of vide this order. 2. Sh. Darshan Singh respondent filed two separate suits for recovery of Rs.5,39,000/- against Sukhpal Singh and Rs.4,21,000/- against Paramjit Kaur on the basis of two different pronotes and receipts. Paramjit PARVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3848 of 2013 (O&M) 2 RSA No. 4869 of 2016 (O&M) Kaur is mother of Sukhpal Singh. Both the pronotes and receipts were executed on 03.11.2005. It has come in evidence that the pronote was executed by Paramjit Kaur in the evening whereas Sukhpal Singh executed the pronote in the morning. Sukhpal Singh borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- whereas his mother namely Paramjit Kaur borrowed Rs.4 lakhs. 3. Both the suits were contested on the ground that there are material additions and alterations in the pronote and receipt and the plaintiff has prepared two pronotes and receipts by playing fraud and by cheating them. 4. In order to prove the pronote and receipts in both the cases the plaintiff examined Mathura Dass one of the attesting witness in one case and in 2nd suit Janak Raj, the other attesting witness of the pronote was examined. The plaintiff in both the suits is one and the same person. The pronote and receipt executed by Sukhpal Singh is attested by two witnesses namely Mathura Dass and Harcharan Singh whereas it is scribed by Naginder Singh. Pronote and receipt executed by Paramjit Kaur is attested by Janak Raj and Naginder Singh who is the scribe as well attesting witness. 5. In the suit filed against Sukhpal Singh the plaintiff examined Mathura Dass. In the suit filed against Paramjit Kaur, Janak Raj was examined. 6. Plaintiff also appeared in evidence. In the suit filed against Sukhpal Singh the Court found various discrepancies in the oral evidence and, therefore, dismissed the suit, however, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court. In the suit filed against Paramjit PARVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3848 of 2013 (O&M) 3 RSA No. 4869 of 2016 (O&M) Kaur both the Courts have concurrently recorded a finding of fact while decreeing the suit. II. Arguments put forth by the learned counsel representing the parties :- 7. Heard learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. 8. Learned counsel representing the appellant has made the following submissions :- 1. Plaintiff admits that he did not meet Sukhpal Singh on 03.11.2005. 2. Naginder Singh admits that he did not meet Paramjit Kaur on 03.11.2005. 3. The plaintiff has failed to prove the purpose for which huge amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was borrowed. 4. There is a common tendency amongst the commission agents to obtain signatures/thumb impressions on blank pronotes. 9. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent submits that Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for statutory presumption in favour of the genuineness of the negotiable instrument. He further submits that minor discrepancies in the oral evidence cannot result in dismissal of recovery suit particularly when there is written contract between the parties and defendants have failed to plead the particulars of the fraud and prove it. It has also been pointed out by respondent’s counsel that Paramjit Kaur filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence in the First Appellate Court claiming that the amount has already been refunded. A copy of the receipt evidencing refund of amount was produced which was subsequently dismissed by the First Appellate Court. PARVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3848 of 2013 (O&M) 4 RSA No. 4869 of 2016 (O&M) III. Analysis and Discussion :- 10. This Court has considered the submissions and carefully perused the photocopies of both the pronotes and receipts. Smt. Paramjit Kaur has appended her multiple thumb impressions on the pronote. Adhesive stamps of one rupee each have been pasted which are also thumb marked by Paramjit Kaur. Similarly there is a receipt of Rs.4 lakh executed by Smt. Paramjit Kaur. Adhesive stamp of Rs.1 is also pasted. She has put her right hand thumb impression on the aforesaid receipt. Similarly, her son Sukhpal Singh has appended as many as four signatures on the pronote. With his own hand he has acknowledged receipt of Rs.3,50,000/-. He has also appended as many as three signatures in a manner that half of portion of the signature comes on the pronote. Separate receipt has also been executed acknowledging the payment of the amount. In this receipt also Sukhpal Singh has signed in a manner that half of the signature comes on the non- judicial stamp whereas the remaining is on the receipt. Effectively the defendants do not dispute their thumb impressions and their signatures. No evidence has been led by the defendants to prove that they never signed or thumb marked pronote and receipts. The oral evidence is required to be analysed and evaluated after reading the same comprehensively. One sentence in oral evidence cannot be read in isolation of the entire statement; moreover the documentary evidence has to be preferred over oral evidence. The learned counsel representing the appellant(s) has based his first two arguments on an isolated sentence divorced from the entire statements of witnesses Darshan Singh and Naginder Singh. Once the execution of documents has been proved, a single sentence cannot be read in isolation PARVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3848 of 2013 (O&M) 5 RSA No. 4869 of 2016 (O&M) from the entire statement and any ambiguity in the statements shall be ignored for the just decision. 11. The next submission of learned counsel lacks substance because the plaintiff is not required to prove the purpose for which the loan was taken by the defendant in both the suits. 12. With respect to the last submission of learned counsel it is pertinent to note that the Courts are not expected to decide the cases on general perception, hence the argument lacks substance. The appellants(s) were required to plead and prove the fraud, however, they also failed to prove the cheating committed by the plaintiff when the pronotes and receipts were signed. Hence there is no manifest error in the judgment of First Appellate Court. IV. Decision :- 13. Keeping in view the foregoing discussion, both the appeals are dismissed. 14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed off. (ANIL KSHETARPAL ) JUDGE 19.03.2025 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PARVINDER SINGH 2025.03.25 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment