JASPAL SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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.) 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.