IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.576 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 8.2.2010 Gurdev Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Jasjit Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed against the appellant. Briefly stated, as per the averments made in the suit, the appellant borrowed a cash loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from the plaintiff- respondent on 22.10.2003 and also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In lieu of this, the defendant-appellant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in the presence of marginal witnesses. The appellant failed to repay the amount of loan. Hence, the present suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Upon notice, the defendant-appellant filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, the appellant denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in question and further submitted that the alleged pronote and receipt were false, forged and fabricated document and were result of misrepresentation/cheating and fraud. It was further submitted that no consideration was passed on to the appellant. It was further submitted by the appellant that in the year 2000, his daughter was married and he had agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff-respondent and in this respect, he had received earnest money from the plaintiff-respondent RSA No.576 of 2010(O&M) -2- and the plaintiff-respondent had obtained his signatures on some blank printed papers as security but later on he refused to purchase the land from him. Thereafter, a dispute arose but due to intervention of respectables, the matter was resolved. However, the plaintiff-respondent was having a grudge against the appellant since then and therefore, he had forged and fabricated the alleged pronote and receipt. Other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact with regard to execution of the pronote and receipt in question. This is not a case of no evidence or misreading of evidence on the basis of which it can be argued that the findings are perverse. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any such perversity in the judgments of the Courts below. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. February 8, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE