Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 186 (PNJ)

Puran v. Charanjit Singh

2002-02-11

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated January 21, 1980 of the Sub Judge IInd Class, Garhshankar, and the judgment dated March 8, 1982 of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Charanjit Singh instituted a suit against the present appellant-defendant for the recovery of Rs. 6, 000/- as principal amount and Rs. 2, 160/- as interest, totalling Rs. 8, 160/-. It was alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 6, 000/- from the respondent and a receipt in favour of the respondent was also executed by the appellant. The appellant had duly appended his signatures on the same. On the pronote, the appellant had agreed to return the principal amount along with interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held that the appellant was liable to pay the afore-mentioned amount to the respondent. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the pronote was a false document. The appellant had signed a blank piece of paper, thinking the same to be used for a mortgage. The counsel has also argued that in the plaint it has been stated by the plaintiff-respondent that the pronote was executed at Garhshankar, but when the plaintiff appeared as a witness, he has averred that the same was returned in the house of one Kalu Ram (P.W. 2). 4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant are devoid of any merit. The pronote (Ex. P1) has been duly proved. Charanjit Singh plaintiff, who appeared as P.W. 1, and Kalu Ram P.W. 2 have deposed that the money was borrowed by the appellant from the respondent, for which the pronote (Ex. P1) and he receipt (Ex. P2) were executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The scribe of these documents was Udai Singh, who had read over the pronote and the receipt to the appellant. The appellant had put in his thumb impression thereon after admitting the same to be correct in the presence of Kalu Ram P.W. 2. In the face of such an overwhelming evidence, it is held that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6, 000/- from the respondent. 5. The appellant had put in his thumb impression thereon after admitting the same to be correct in the presence of Kalu Ram P.W. 2. In the face of such an overwhelming evidence, it is held that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 6, 000/- from the respondent. 5. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the pronote and the receipt were false documents, is also without any merit. If the plaintiff-respondent wanted to chear the defendant-appellant, then much bigger amount could have been written on the pronote. Thus, the averment of the appellant that he had signed on a blank piece of paper, cannot be believed. No fraud or misrepresentation has been proved by the appellant. Both the Courts below have rightly decided the case in favour of the respondent. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are hereby affirmed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.