R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.11.2009 Kartar Singh ......Appellant Versus Amarjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Kartar Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.92,000/-, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.2005. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 12.8.2006. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 2 “ That on notice, defendant took the preliminary objections that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute and file the suit in question and that Hon'ble Court did not have the territorial jurisdiction claiming that the same was barred by the act and conduct of the plaintiff and that under the provisions of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, the present suit was not maintainable and on merits, denied the allegations that on 16.12.2001, the defendant ever took the loan in question or executed the pronote and receipt in acknowledgment of the same and the defendant rather raked up the issue that on 1.3.1996, the defendant had secured a loan of Rs.38,700/- from Jalaur Singh father of the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt thereon taking the plea that under the said pronote, the defendant was made to agree to pay interest @ 2 ½% per month and that in the year, 1997, this principal amount along with interest were compounded and a fresh pronote was executed and pronote dated 1.3.1996 was returned back to the defendant and that the principal amount and interest were accumulated in another pronote in the year 1998 and that similarly, on 21.6.1999, another pronote of the outstanding amount along with interest was executed in favour of Tar Singh and Kartar Singh, both sons of Jalaur Singh, who has R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 3 since died and that previous pronote was returned and that on 20.6.2000, after calculating the interest and compounding the same with the principal, another two pronotes were executed in favour of Kartar Singh for a sum of Rs.82,000/- and another for a sum of Rs.61,000/- in favour of Rsm Singh son of Tar Singh son of Jalaur Singh and these pronotes were in lieu of pronote dated 21.6.1999, claiming that another pronote for a sum of Rs.84,200/- was written in lieu of the previous amount for Rs.89,720/- after the plaintiff was paid Rs.5500/- out of the same by the defendant and submitted that there was no due consideration having been passed and therefore, no such enforceable right vested in the plaintiff to claim the amount.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs84,200/- from the plaintiff on 16.12.2001 and executed pronote and receipt in consideration thereof?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate? OPP 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 4 and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred under order 30 of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934? OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD 7. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is “ whether findings of the Courts below are are illegal?” In the present case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 16.12.2001. In order to prove due execution of the pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively, the plaintiff examined deed writer Rashbhinder Parkash PW-2 and Gurmail Singh PW-3, one of the attesting witness of the receipt. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The said witnesses deposed with regard to due execution of the pronote and receipt executed by the defendant on 16.12.2001 with regard to Rs.84,200/- in favour of the plaintiff. A perusal of the pronote and receipt reveals that these are duly signed by the defendant. The defendant in his written statement has taken the plea that he had taken a loan of Rs.38,700/- from Jalaur Singh, father of the plaintiff on 1.3.1996 and pronote and receipt Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 in this regard were executed. He had R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 5 repaid the said amount to the father of the plaintiff and had taken a receipt Ex.D-8 in the year 1997. On 26.11.1998, an entry was got made Ex.D-4 with regard to pronote and receipt in favour of Tar Singh and Kartar Singh, sons of Jalaur Singh. The said amount was paid. Then on 21.6.1999, another pronote was got executed from him in favour of Kartar Singh and Tar Singh Ex.D-3 and it was entered in the register Ex.D-5. On 20.6.2000, again two pronotes were got executed from him in favour of Ram Singh, son of Tar Singh and Kartar Singh. Entry in the register was made Ex.D-6. On 16.12.2001, plaintiff took Rs.5500/- from the defendant and got pronote and receipt executed from him. Thus, the defendant, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1, has not denied the execution of pronote and receipt by him. In his cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. However, he denied that he had obtained any cash payment from Kartar Singh. The Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the pronote and receipt in question were executed on account of earlier outstanding amount received by defendant from Jalaur Singh. It is not a case that defendant did not owe any amount to the plaintiff. Assuming that the pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively were executed for some past outstanding amount, then it leads to the inference that the amount was due from the defendant towards the plaintiff. The view taken by the Courts below that the pronote and receipt could not be executed for past consideration is R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 6 without any basis. Once the execution of the pronote and receipt is proved, a presumption arises that the same has been executed for consideration. It has been held by this Court in M/s Mehta Charan Dass and Co. vs. Ram Parshad (deceased) through his L.Rs., 2002 (2) RCR (Civil), 194, as under:- “It is proved on the record that the parties had the dealings earlier and the pronote in question was executed after settling the accounts. In this view of the matter, it has to be presumed that there was a past consideration and in view of that consideration the pronote was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.” In Harbans Singh vs. Firm M/s Sunder Mal Sat Pal 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 0589, this Court has held as under:- “To settle the accounts, parties agreed to give it a form in the shape of pronote to which the defendant too appended his signatures in the presence of witnesses. Acceptance of past consideration is also a valid consideration to hold that the document has been executed for consideration. In the context of the present case, the Court rightly came to the conclusion that promissory note and receipt were executed by the defendant and for a valuable consideration.” In these circumstances, the judgments of the Courts R.S.A.No. 4292 of 2006 (O&M) 7 below are illegal. The substantial question of law that arises in this appeal stands answered accordingly. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.92,000/- is decreed along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. (SABINA) JUDGE November 06 , 2009 anita