Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Ramji Dass Kishore Chand vs Kamardeep on 3 November, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.3286 of 2006 Date of Decision:03.11.2008
M/s Ramji Dass Kishore Chand, Commission Agents, Malout
…..Appellant
Vs.
Kamardeep …..Respondent
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
On the other hand, the plaintiff- firm has examined the document expert Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, PW1 who has opined that the disputed writing and signatures at Mark Q.1, Q.2 and standard signatures Mark S.1 to S.3, specimen writings Mark A.1 to A.10 of Kamardeep are similar in their writing characteristics and have been written by one and the same person. A careful delving into Ex.P.1 would reveal that in this entry, the amount has not been mentioned only at one place rather at two places. The amount mentioned in landa script in the beginning of this entry is also Rs.1,57,000/-. There is no overwriting or cutting worth the name in this amount. There is an interesting feature in this case. The case of the plaintiff- firm is that a sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was advanced by it to the defendant, whereas the defendant admitted that he had raised a loan of Rs.10,700/-. On counting the digits of the figure Rs.1,57,000/-, these work out to 6 whereas that of Rs.10,700/- comes to 5. To add further to it, in Ex.P.2 the relevant entry in Pakka Rokar, Ex.P.3 the attested copy of Khata (ledger) for the year 2000-01, Ex.P.4 attested copy of relevant entry in the Khata for the year 2001-2002, the notice Ex.P.5 served upon the defendant, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.1,57,000/-. One more zero was also required to be added to convert 10,700 into 1,57,000. There are no allegations that zero has been added later on.
In the ultimate analysis, it boils down that the defendant’s plea that he had taken a loan of Rs.10,700/- only is unacceptable. The entries in Ex.P.1 cannot be read or assessed in isolation of entries in Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5, Ex.P.X and the expert’s report Ex.PW2/1. The learned Appellate Court has erred in not taking into account this documentary evidence. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is accepted modifying the impugned judgment decree dated 24.5.2006 and restore the judgment/ decree dated 11.8.2005 passed by the learned trial Court in its entirety.