Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2613 (PNJ)

Gurtej Singh v. Jasmeet Singh

2006-07-07

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.4.2006, whereby the application for leave to contest, was allowed on the condition of furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.2 lacs. 2. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for recovery of rs.1,91,780/- i. e. a sum of Rs.1,11,500/- as principal amount and the remaining being the interest on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 10.10.2002. In the application for leave to defend, the defendant took up a stand that the pronote and the receipt are false, forged and fabricated documents and that the plaintiff obtained his signatures on blank pronote and receipt on the pretext that the same would be filled on availability of scribe and marginal witnesses and undertook that he would not mis-utilise the documents. 3. The learned trial Court has found that the pronote and receipt dated 10.10.1992 are scribed by Gurdial Singh and attested by Gurmit Singh and Malkiat Singh, and is signed by the defendant as well. It has categorically recorded the following finding:- "i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pronote and receipt dated 10.10.2002 scribed by gurdial Singh son of Bhag Singh and attested by Gurmit Singh and Malkiat Singh and signed by Gurtej Singh defendant as well. Defendant has executed this pronote and receipt in dispute. The defendant has put forward blank paper theory, denial of consideration and manipulation of pronote and receipt in dispute. The figure shown is an old figures. Gurmit Singh witness has signed the document pronote and receipt with blank ink. Proper addresses of the scribe and complete and correct address of witnesses have not been mentioned in the pronote and receipt. Signatures of Gurtej Singh also exist on the reverse side of pronote and receipt and nothing has been written on the reverse of pronote and receipt, hence contestable issues and controversy exist which needs to be decided on the basis of evidence. " 4. A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that a categorical finding has been recorded in respect of execution of pronote and receipt but still without giving any reason, the Court has jumped to the conclusion that contestable issues and controversy exist, which need to be decided on the basis of evidence. " 4. A perusal of the above leaves no manner of doubt that a categorical finding has been recorded in respect of execution of pronote and receipt but still without giving any reason, the Court has jumped to the conclusion that contestable issues and controversy exist, which need to be decided on the basis of evidence. In the absence of any reason in respect of contestable issues or controversy, I do not find that there exists any justifiable ground which could entitle the defendant to contest the suit. As a matter of fact, the defence of the defendant that his signatures were obtained on blank pronote and receipt subject to filling the same on availability of scribe and marginal witnesses, leaves no manner of doubt that the amount was advanced but the pronote was filled in subsequently. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any parent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.