Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the original defendant (Ashok Mohanlal Poddar) against the judgment of the appellate court dated 20th January 2003, which decreed a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent (Pawan Ratnanlal Chamelia). The respondent claimed that he had lent Rs.30,000 to the appellant on 21st July 1998, evidenced by a document (Exh.25), repayable by 30th January 1999. The appellant denied the claim, alleging that his signature was obtained on a blank stamp paper in connection with a gambling debt. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the contents of the document were not proved. The appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit. The High Court framed a substantial question of law: whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree when the contents of the document were not proved. The High Court noted that the appellant had admitted his signature on the document, but that did not amount to admission of the contents. The appellate court had erroneously relied on the admission of signature to conclude that the contents were proved. The High Court held that the appellate court's finding was perverse and not based on evidence. Consequently, the second appeal was allowed, the appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decree dismissing the suit was restored. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was filed by the original defendant against the appellate court's decree in a money recovery suit. The trial court had dismissed the suit holding that the contents of the document (Exh.25) were not proved. The appellate court reversed the decree. The High Court held that the appellate court's finding was perverse as it failed to consider that mere admission of signature does not prove the contents of the document. The appeal was allowed and the trial court's decree was restored. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree dismissing the suit for recovery of money when the contents of the document were not proved.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. The judgment of the appellate court dated 20th January 2003 is set aside. The decree of the trial court dismissing the suit is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Proof of contents of document
- Admission of signature not admission of contents
- Section 100 CPC
