KAPIL KUMAR versus RAJ KUMAR

KAPIL KUMAR versus RAJ KUMAR

The High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact on execution of the promissory note; the plaintiff proved the defendant's signature (by PW2) and execution/receipt (by PW3); non-examination of the attesting witness was not fatal in the circumstances; the presumption of consideration under Section 118 NI Act applied and was not successfully rebutted; accordingly the High Court's order setting aside the decree was quashed and the trial and first appellate court decrees restoring recovery were upheld.

Parties
Original Plaintiff / Appellant: Kapil Kumar; Original Defendant / Respondent: Raj Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 05.08.2019 quashed and set aside; judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court restored
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Presumption of Consideration, Second Appeal, Concurrent Findings of Fact, Handwriting Expert Evidence
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Code of Civil Procedure Evidence Promissory Note Presumption of Consideration Second Appeal Concurrent Findings of Fact Handwriting Expert Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kapil Kumar

Original Plaintiff / Appellant

Raj Kumar

Original Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution and signature on the promissory note (pro-note) by the defendant were proved
  2. 2 Whether non-examination of the attesting witness to the promissory note is fatal to the plaintiff's case
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact on execution of the promissory note; the plaintiff proved the defendant's signature (by PW2) and execution/receipt (by PW3); non-examination of the attesting witness was not fatal in the circumstances; the presumption of consideration under Section 118 NI Act applied and was not successfully rebutted; accordingly the High Court's order setting aside the decree was quashed and the trial and first appellate court decrees restoring recovery were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 05.08.2019 quashed and set aside; judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court restored

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 05.08.2019 of the High Court quashed and set aside
  • Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit confirmed by the First Appellate Court restored