Ram Lubhaya v. Liaqat Rai Th.Lrs. & ANR.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 12.04.2016 Ram Lubhaya ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Liaqat Rai (Deceased) through his LRs.

... Respondent(s)

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan.

1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

Yes To be referred to reporters or not?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes

Present:

Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the respondent(s).

Shekher Dhawan, J.

Present petition is challenge to the order dated 1.12.2015, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Abohar whereby application, filed by the decree holder, was allowed. Relevant facts of the case that the decree holder filed an execution application for issuance of conditional warrants of the judgment debtor. Judgment debtor filed reply inter alia taking the plea that he had already paid the entire amount. More so, a sum of `

1,50,000/- was paid to the decree holder on 2.2.2012 and original receipt was produced on the record. The Court below declined the said prayer that there was no authenticity of any payment made by the judgment debtor and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that receipt dated 2.2.2012 (Annexure P3) was duly issued against payment of ` 1,50,000/- and the Court below has not considered the said receipt while passing the order under challenge.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the alleged receipt dated 2.2.2012 is a bogus and forged document. The same was never produced before the first Appellate Court as appeal was pending before the first Appellate Court and the same was decided nine months after the execution of alleged receipt (Annexure P3). Had there been any receipt in favour of the petitioner, the same must have been produced on the file before the first Appellate Court and that fact itself established that the receipt (Annexure P3) is a bogus document and the Court below has rightly declined to take note of that receipt and present petition is without any merit and the same be dismissed.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that certain facts are not disputed that civil suit was decided against the present petitioner on 13.10.2010. It is the contention of the petitioner that payment of ` 1,50,000/- was made vide receipt dated 2.2.2012 (Annexure P3) and the same has not been taken into consideration by the Executing Court while passing the order under challenge.

this contention of the petitioner is not acceptable at all because at the time of execution of the receipt (Annexure P3), first appeal having been filed by present petitioner was pending before the District Judge, Ferozepur and first of all, if any payment was to be made, the same should have been made before the Court only. But that has not been done. Secondly, if any payment was made during pendency of the appeal, such a receipt would have been produced before the Appellate Court because the appeal was pending in the matter relating to the suit for recovery. No application for additional evidence so as to produce the said receipt was moved before the first Appellate Court. The respondent had denied the execution of this receipt. All these factors established that the contention of petitioner is not tenable and the same has rightly been declined by the Court below while passing the order under challenge.

In view of above, present petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.

(Shekher Dhawan) Judge April 12, 2016 "DK"