R.S.A. No. 2044 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2044 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 2.12.2010 Smt. Kartaro Bai @ Taro Bai ... Appellant Versus Mohinder Pal ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant against whom decree for the recovery of `1,00,000 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum was passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), which in the first appeal was modified only to the extent of interest, which was allowed @12% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt till the date of decree and future interest @6% per annum till the realisation of the decree. The plaintiff filed suit for the recovery of `1,72,600 i.e. `1,00,000/- as principal amount, ` 72,000/- as interest and ` 600/- as expenses of legal notice. He pleaded in his plaint that the principal amount of `1,00,000/- was borrowed by the defendant from him, who executed pronote and receipt in consideration thereof. She agreed to repay the borrowed amount along with the interest, but failed to do so despite repeated demands. R.S.A. No. 2044 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The suit was contested by the defendant. In her written statement she denied the contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that her name is Taro Bai and not Kartaro Bai, as mentioned in the plaint. Her husband Surinder Singh was having dealings with the firm of brother of the plaintiff, who is a commission agent. No amount was ever due to that firm from her husband. The pronote and receipt put forward by the plaintiff do not bear her signatures. In replication to the written statement, the plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether pronote and receipt dated 27.10.99 is legal and valid?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ` one Lac? If so, at what rate of interest?OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the alleged pronote and receipt is the result of fraud and forgery?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Relief. To succeed in the suit plaintiff examined himself as PW3, Shri R.S.A. No. 2044 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Sham Lal PW1, Parvesh Kumar Document Writer PW2. On the other hand the defendant entered the witness box as DW1 and examined Jaswinder Singh DW2. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned counsel for both the sides learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly decreed his suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2004. The first appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2009 passed by the District Judge Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the defendant that substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal as the material evidence produced by the defendant for proving that her name is Taro Bai and not Kartaro Bai was ignored by the lower Courts on flimsy grounds. The photo stat copies of the pass-book of pension and voters list were proved on the record as Ex.D1 and D2 and those were not taken into consideration by the lower Courts though those were duly proved. There was sufficient material before the lower Courts for coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the contention of defendant that she is not known as Kartaro Bai. The first appeal was preferred by her as indigent person and in the affidavit filed by her alongwith application she described herself as Kartaro Bai and had put her signatures as such. It is a matter of common knowledge that some of the people are known by two names and it is very usual in the villages. There is every possibility of R.S.A. No. 2044 of 2010 (O&M) -4- defendant to be known as Kartaro Bai @ Taro Bai. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. December 2, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge