Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 296 (PNJ)

Jagdeep Singh v. Gurjeet Kaur

2012-02-21

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2012
Hon’ble Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. : The defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery against the defendant for recovery of R.63,500/- (Rs.50,000/- as principal and Rs.13,500/- towards interest) on the basis of a cheque dated 26.11.2002 bearing No.973324 issued by Jagdeep Singh, defendant. It was pleaded that in the month of April, 2002, the defendant was in need of money and accordingly, he had requested the plaintiff along with her husband to advance a loan of Rs.50,000/-. Such loan was advanced in the last week of April 2002, upon which the defendant had agreed to return the said amount in the month of November, 2002. Towards discharging of his liability, on 26.11.2002, the defendant had issued the cheque in question in favour of the plaintiff and the same was drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Amritsar. Upon the presentation of the cheque by the plaintiff through her banker, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 16.4.2003 with the remarks “No such account”. As such, it was pleaded that the defendant had issued a bogus cheque knowingfully well that the same was not to be encashed. Even a legal notice dated 24.4.2003 had been served upon the defendant under registered AD post. Even proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the 1881 Act’) have been initiated by the plaintiff and the present suit for recovery was in respect of the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum which comes to Rs.63,500/-. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit by stating that since the plaintiff had already initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the 1881 Act, as such, the proceedings of the present suit were liable to be stayed. On merits, it was contended that the defendant had not issued the cheque in question. A stand was taken that the plaintiff had come in possession of the blank cheque pertaining to an account of the defendant which had, in fact, been handed over to another person, namely, Lovely in the year 1998. It was stated that the plaintiff had colluded with such person, namely, Lovely and had filled up a sum of Rs.50,000/- so as to create a false liability on the defendant. It was stated that the plaintiff had colluded with such person, namely, Lovely and had filled up a sum of Rs.50,000/- so as to create a false liability on the defendant. The defendant further stated that he had closed his bank account on 18.2.1999 itself i.e. much prior to the date of issuance of the cheque in question. 4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following crucial issue: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.63,500/- from the defendant along with interest?OPP” 5. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant-appellant preferred a civil appeal and the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 1.8.2011. 6. I have heard Mr.VK Sandhir, Advocate appearing for the appellant at length. 7. I do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The plaintiff-respondent has proved all the relevant and requisite documents on the file i.e. the copy of cheque in question, Exhibit P3/2, copy of memo of Bank, Exhibit P3/3, copy of the legal notice served upon the defendant-appellant, Exhibit P3/4, copy of postal receipt, Exhibit P3/5, certified copy of UPC, Exhibit P3/6 and AD card, Exhibit P3/7. The presumption under Section 118 of the 1881 Act is in favour of due consideration unless the contrary is proved. It has also come on record that in pursuance to the complaint filed under Section 138 of the 1881 Act by the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of the cheque in question, the defendant-appellant stands convicted, though the appeal preferred by him is still pending. No evidence has been led on behalf of the defendant-appellant as regards any steps that may have been taken on his behalf so as to corroborate his version that a cheque entrusted to one Lovely towards security in relation to a separate transaction had been fraudulently misused by the plaintiff-respondent. 8. On the basis of evidence led and upon due appreciation of the same, the suit for recovery has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffrespondent and I find no basis that would warrant interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below so as to hold the plaintiff-respondent to be not entitled to the relief of recovery of the principal amount of Rs.50,000/-. 9. 9. I find that the first Appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the limited extent that instead of 24% interest awarded, the plaintiff-respondent has been held entitled to 9% interest per annum on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. I find absolutely no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court. 10. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present second appeal. 11. The instant appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. Appeal dismissed.