Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 39 (PNJ)

Jaspal Singh v. Balbir Singh

2004-01-13

V.M.JAIN

body2004
ORDER V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge. 2. Balbir Singh plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,400/- (Rs. 95,000/- as principal and Rs. 68,400/- as interest) on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 19.4.1996, allegedly executed by Makhan Singh defendant (father of the present appellant) in favour of Balbir Singh plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had taken a cash loan of Rs. 95,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.4.1996 and had agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month and had executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in this regard. It was alleged that the defendant having failed to pay the principal and interest due thereon to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant. On the death of Makhan Singh defendant, the suit was contested by the present appellants by filing the written statement taking up the plea that the suit was barred by time and also alleged therein that Makhan Singh had never taken cash loan of Rs. 95,000/- on 19.4.1996 from the plaintiff on interest @ 2% per month and had never executed the pronote and receipt in question in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the pronote and the receipt in question were forged and fabricated documents and without consideration and that Makhan Singh remained ill and was a drunkard and under the influence of liquor, the plaintiff had succeeded in getting the signatures of Makhan Singh on blank pronote and receipt and the same were used for fabricating the documents. Various issues were framed, including the issue regarding limitation. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that Makhan Singh had taken loan of Rs. 95,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the pronote and the receipt in question in his favour and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount with interest. It was further held that the suit was within time. 95,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the pronote and the receipt in question in his favour and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount with interest. It was further held that the suit was within time. The appeal filed by the legal heirs of Makhan Singh defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court. They have now filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendent-appellants submitted before me that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time and that the Courts below had erred in law in deciding issue No. 3 against the defendants. It was submitted that the suit having been filed on the last day of limitation beyond Court hours i.e. at 9.00 p.m. on 19.4.1999 at the residence of the Judicial Officer, it could not be said that the suit was within limitation. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the defendant- appellants. It is the admitted case of the parties that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 19.4.1999 at 9.00 p.m. at the residence of the Presiding Officer. Admittedly, 19.4.1999 was the last date of limitation for filing the suit. Admittedly, the suit was filed beyond the normal Court hours, which are from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the Courts and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for the offices attached to the Courts. The learned District Judge while upholding the finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 3 and holding that the suit was within limitation had referred to the copy of the Instructions dated 2.9.1982 issued by this Court vide Circular No. 18958/Gaz.II/ IX.C.18 dated 2.9.1982 and addressed to all the District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the U.T., Chandigarh, according to which the Judicial Officers could entertain the suit even on a Court holiday or beyond the office hours at their residence. The learned District Judge had also placed reliance on the law laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case reported as AIR 1965 Andhra Pradesh 386, Pindukuru Balrami Reddy v. Jaladanki Venkatasubhaiah and another, in which after considering the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1 CPC, it was held that there was nothing in Order 4 Rule 1 CPC that the presentation of the plaint must be within the office hours and the Judge to whom the plaint or appeal is presented after the Court hours has a discretion to accept it or reject it. After referring to the Instructions issued by this Court and the law laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the above said authority, it was found by the learned District Judge that the suit was within limitation as it was filed on the last day of limitation at 9.00 p.m. at the residence of the Presiding Officer. 4. I have gone through the Instructions dated 2.9.1982 issued by this Court to the various District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory, Chandigarh. In those Instructions, it was specifically mentioned by this Court that there was no bar in view of the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1 CPC for a party to file a suit on Court holiday or out of office hours at the residence of the Judge, though the Judge may not be bound to entertain and accept the same. Attention was invited to the provisions of Order 4 Rule 1 CPC in this regard and it was concluded that no Judicial Officer would refuse to exercise his discretion in a case of urgency justifying the grant of appropriate relief in the form of injunction or stay order in appropriate case, even when the suit was presented beyond office hours on any working day or any holiday at his residence. In the aforesaid letter, the District and Sessions Judges, were asked to bring the above said legal position to the notice of all the Judicial Officers working under their control. 5. In the aforesaid letter, the District and Sessions Judges, were asked to bring the above said legal position to the notice of all the Judicial Officers working under their control. 5. In AIR 1965 Andhra Pradesh 386 (supra), it was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that there is nothing in Order 4 Rule 1 CPC to show that the presentation must be within the office hours and the Judge to whom a plaint or appeal is presented after the Court hours has a discretion to accept it or reject it, but once the Judge accepted it, he cannot be refused to take it by endorsing his refusal. 6. From a perusal of the above referred Instructions issued by this Court and the law laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court, in my opinion, the learned District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the suit filed on 19.4.1999 and presented to the Presiding Officer at his residence at 9.00 p.m. was clearly within limitation and the suit could not be held to be time barred. 7. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal. 8. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.