It is not the job of the police authorities to get the matter settled in their offices
As it is undisputed fact that entire case of the plaintiff for advancing money to defendant was based upon Paper No. 13 Ka-1 executed before S.P. City, Aligarh, no other document was filed, nor the case was proved through oral testimony in regard to advancing of money to defendant. The oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 only prove the execution of Paper No. 13 Ka-1 before police authorities, apart from that plaintiff failed to disclose in his plaint the dates on which advance to the tune of Rs.14 lacs was made by him and also as to when Rs.2 lacs was returned by defendant. Plaintiff also did not bring on record his income tax return for the relevant years to prove whether he had disclosed the amount in his return.[Para No.27]
Argument of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted to the extent that Paper No. 13 Ka was proved by oral testimony of PWs and DWs and lower appellate court could not have decreed the suit against plaintiff on the ground that it was got executed under pressure.[Para No.28]
It is plaintiff's specific case that Paper No. 13 Ka-1 was got executed before S.P. City, Aligarh on 25.05.2009. Plaintiff himself is a practicing lawyer at Aligarh and the two witnesses, Vinod Kumar Gautam (P.W.-2) and Arun Kumar Gautam (P.W.-3) are also practicing advocates in civil court in Aligarh, thus, it is an admitted case that document was executed before the police authorities, and neither of the police officers were examined as plaintiff witnesses to prove the execution of the said document. Burden of proving the document having been executed in the office of S.P. City, Aligarh was upon the plaintiff, as the defendant had categorically stated in his written statement as well as in cross-examination that the said document was got executed under duress and pressure.[Para No.29]
It is strange to note that police station and office of district police officials are becoming center for mediation/ settlement of civil and commercial disputes. It is not the job of the police authorities to get the matter settled in their offices rather, making genuine efforts to curb and control crime in the district. [Para No.30]
Once the plaintiff had relied upon the document to have been executed before police authorities, onus was upon him to prove that it was executed under free will, and the officer before whom the same was executed should have been produced as one of the witnesses.[Para No.31]
Finding recorded by lower appellate court as to Paper No. 13 Ka-1, said to have been executed under pressure does not need any interference as the document relied upon by plaintiff cannot be admitted as proof as it is not beyond doubt and suspicion.[Para No.32]
Further, it is the specific case of the plaintiff himself that Paper No. 13 Ka-1 was got executed on 25.05.2009 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, whose credibility itself is under doubt and the entire onus lies upon the plaintiff for proving the same.[Para No.34]
Moreover, there is no independent witness to Paper No. 13 Ka-1 as two advocates, Vinod Kumar Gautam and Arun Kumar Gautam have signed on behalf of plaintiff and Mayank Jain on behalf of defendant.[Para No.35]
Apart from issue discussed by lower appellate court, there was no issue to be considered, and once it was found that Paper No. 13 Ka-1 was executed under pressure, appeal of the defendant was allowed, as sole basis of decreeing the suit of the plaintiff was Paper No. 13 Ka-1.[Para No.36]
Reliance placed upon decision in the case of C. Venkata Swamy (supra), Vinod Kumar (supra), Bhagirathi (supra) and Rishikesh (supra) by appellant does not find any support as facts of present case are distinguishable from the same, as the sole case of plaintiff was that defendant refused to return money and on the basis of the document executed before the police authorities, he was bound to return the same. The lower appellate court after framing point of determination and discussing the case had allowed the appeal of defendant.[Para No.37]
As far as reliance upon decision in case of Jyotsna K. Valiya (supra), K. Muneyya and Co. (supra) and Mokesh Builders and Financier Limited (supra), the same are not applicable in the present case, as the document claimed by plaintiff to have been executed on 25.05.2009 was before police authorities and had been claimed by defendant to have been got executed under duress.[Para No.38]
Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Sharma
Vs.
Sanjay Kumar Jain
Decided on 10/12/2020