HIRA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants-Hira Singh and Bachan Singh were defendants before the trial Court. Respondent-plaintiff-Ajit Singh filed a suit for recovery, which was decreed in his favour vide judgement and decree dated 9.1.2012 passed by the trial Court. Thereafter the present appellants filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran to challenge the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2012 passed by the trial Court. Said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2013.

(2.) After loosing the battle before the two courts below, the appellants have filed the present appeal before this Court to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence available on record and wrong and erroneous findings have been given, which are liable to be set aside. The alleged pronote and receipt were prepared by the respondent-plaintiff in connivance with witnesses and the suit was filed on false and frivolous grounds. The statements of PW-1 to PW-3 are contradictory and unbelievable. The first lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the pronote and receipt were not proved on record before the trial Court. Those documents were not exhibited and the same were not having any evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff in the civil suit was based on pronote and receipt, which was missing. It was admitted by him during his cross-examination that no complaint was registered even after missing of the documents. Both the Courts below have not taken into consideration this material fact. Learned counsel further submits that Jagtar Singh, the scribe of the pronote was not produced as witness and without recording his statement, the pronote and receipt could not be proved on record and were not admissible as per Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It isalso the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged pronote and receipt were specifically denied by the appellants and the alleged signatures on the said pronote and receipt were to be proved by the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar alias Motta Vs. State of Haryana, 2011 1 RCR(Cri) 356.