CHHOTU RAM Vs. KULWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, dated 21.08.2012 by which the suit of the respondent -plaintiff was decreed with costs for recovery of Rs. 2,32,200/ - alongwith pendente lite and future interest at the agreed rate of 2% per month on the principal amount of Rs. 1,35,000/ - with effect from 19.08.2007 till realization of the amount, which judgment and decree stands affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, on 11.02.2013 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant -defendant. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant -defendant that the pronote which is the basis for filing the present suit, according to which, the appellant -defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/ - from the respondent -plaintiff on 19.08.2004 and receipt to this effect issued in favour of the respondent -plaintiff, are not signed by him. He contends that the signatures having been disputed by the appellant -defendant, it was the requirement that the respondent -plaintiff should have examined an Expert to prove the fact that the said signature was his. He contends that the Court on its own could not have come to a conclusion, by itself comparing the signatures that they were of appellant -defendant. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar v/s. State of Rajasthan, : AIR 2013 Supreme Court 633, to contend that the comparison of the signatures by the Court is not permissible.

(2.) The second contention which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant -defendant is that Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal, who appeared as PW -2 being a scribe of the document, has in his cross -examination, stated that the consideration was not handedover to the appellant -defendant in his presence, whereas, the other three witnesses, namely, respondent -plaintiff (PW -1), Atma Ram (PW -3) and Tejinder Singh, Namberdar of village Nezadela Kalan, District Sirsa (PW -4) have stated that the consideration has exchanged hands, where the scribe was also present. He, therefore, contends that one of the witness having categorically denied the consideration having been paid to the appellant -defendant in his presence, the Court could not give the findings on the basis of such contradictory evidence with regard to the execution of the document and the consideration having been handed -over. He, thus, contends that the judgments passed by the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant -defendant and with his assistance, have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below.