RSA No.4331 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4331 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: October 18, 2011 Dhanna Singh .....Appellant v. Jasbir Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Slar, Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 3. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 6.3.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 against judgment and decree dated 16.7.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri, vide which suit filed by respondents- plaintiffs for recovery of `1,40,000/- alongwith interest was decreed against present appellant-defendant no.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of `1,40,000/- against present appellant-defendant by taking the plea that a sum of `1,40,000/- was borrowed by him from Pavittar Singh, i.e., husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiffs no.2 and 3 on 31.5.1999 and he RSA No.4331 of 2009(O&M) -2- agreed to repay the said amount @ 2% interest per month and he also executed a pronote and receipt in favour of Pavittar Singh. As he failed to repay the loan, the present suit was filed. Upon notice being issued, appellant-defendant admitted having borrowed the said amount and executed a pronote and receipt. However, plea was taken that later on, the account was settled and the pronote and receipt executed by Dhanna Singh in favour of Pavittar Singh were torn. On appreciation of evidence, suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was decreed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by present appellant- defendant no.1 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant that respondents-plaintiffs were to stand on their own legs and that they have failed to prove due execution of pronote and receipt as the original pronote and receipt were not produced. It is further contended that extract from the register of petition-writer cannot be said to be a secondary evidence of the original pronote and receipt. On the point he has also placed reliance upon Sadhu Ram v. S.P.Karwal and others 1993(1) PLR 165. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs that evidence adduced by appellant-defendant is not in accordance with the plea taken by him in his written statement. He further contended that in view of admission on the part of appellant- defendant no.1 having received `1,40,000/- and having executed a pronote and receipt, onus shifted on him to prove that the amount was repaid and the pronote and receipt were torn, which he failed to prove. It is further RSA No.4331 of 2009(O&M) -3- contended that rather in the evidence, it has been deposed by appellant- defendant that no such money was taken by him and no such pronote and receipt were executed by him and that he has not deposed as to when the amount was repaid and as to when the pronote and receipt were torn. Case of appellant-defendant no.1, as per written statement is that amount was received and the pronote and receipt were executed. There was specific plea that amount was returned and the pronote and receipts were torn at that time. However, both the courts have come to the conclusion that no convincing evidence has been produced by appellant- defendant no.1 in order to prove the said plea. So far as the loss of original pronote and receipt is concerned, specific plea has been taken in this regard by respondents-plaintiffs. FIR was also lodged by them resulting in conviction of one of the accused. Respondents-plaintiffs were granted permission to adduce secondary evidence of pronote and receipt. Hence, in view of admission of appellant-defendant that he received `1,40,000/- and executed a pronote and receipt, it was for the appellant-defendant to prove that the amount was returned and the pronote and receipt were torn. However, both the Courts have held that he has failed to prove the said plea. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this RSA No.4331 of 2009(O&M) -4- second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 18.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge