SURAT SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH DILBAG SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, for recovery of Rs.5,11,343.00, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below are in patent error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as the suit was barred by limitation. It is submitted that it is own case of the plaintiff that the appellant had borrowed monies on 11/5/2012; whereas suit has been filed on 15/5/2015. It is submitted that therefore, there was delay of 5 days in filing the suit. However, this aspect of the matter has not been considered by learned Courts below.

(3.) It is further submitted that the appellant used to sell crops and purchase urea, seeds and fertilizers etc. from the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has misused the said transactional record to show loan payments to the appellant. Moreover, in the income tax returns submitted by the plaintiff, he has not shown advance of any loan to the appellant. Even interest payments are not reflected in the income tax returns submitted by the plaintiff. In this regard, learned counsel refers to the evidence of DW3 Assistant Income Tax Officer, who had clearly stated in his evidence that assessee/plaintiff has not mentioned any amount either against the column of loan and advances or against the interest income in any of the returns. It is submitted that this proves that plaintiff had made false and incorrect entries after forging the thumb impressions of the appellant/defendant. As such, case of the plaintiff was not proven.