The Supreme Court has observed that unless the concurrent findings were found to be perverse, the same should not be interfered with in exercise of powers under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code.

The bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Krishna Murari made this observation while dealing with an appeal challenging the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court setting aside the Order passed by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,36,550.

Advocate Narender Pal Bhardwaj appeared for the Appellant while Advocate J.S. Malik appeared for the Respondent.

The appellant i.e., the original plaintiff instituted the suit against the respondent for the purpose of recovery of Rs. 1 lakh. As per the plaintiff, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from him in the year 2007 and, also executed a pro-note and receipt in favour of him. However, the defendant denied the execution of the pro-note.

The defendant took a stand that he has not taken any loan from the plaintiff and rather, the transaction was between the plaintiff's father and him. Therefore, he paid the whole amount to his father.

The Trial Court after examining all the facts, circumstances, and witnesses believed the execution of pro-note and decreed the suit.

The First Appeal was filed by the defendant which came to be dismissed.

The High Court allowed the second appeal stating that the content of the pro-note has not been proved.

The original plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court filed the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the power used by the High Court under Section 100 of CPC is valid in nature or not.

The Supreme Court observed – "Unless the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below were found to be perverse, the same were not required to be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Section 100 of CPC."

The Court also observed – "From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that as such no specific substantial question of law seems to have been framed by the High Court."

The Court held that "The High Court has committed a very serious error in upsetting the findings of facts recorded by the learned Trial Court."

The Court noted that no contrary evidence has been led by the defendant to disprove his signature on the pro-note and that even the execution of the pro-note has been established by the plaintiff by examining the deed writer.

"At this stage it is required to be noted that as per the provision of Section 118 of the NI Act there is a presumption of consideration in the negotiable instrument [Section 118(a)]. It is true that such presumption may be rebutted. However, no rebuttal evidence is led by the defendant. Under the circumstances also the High Court has erred in allowing the second appeal and quashing and setting aside the decree passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court.", the Court noted.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned Order passed by the High Court, and the decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit confirmed by the First Appellate Court was restored.

Cause Title – Kapil Kumar v. Raj Kumar

Click here to read/download the Judgment