RSA No. 632 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 632 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 24, 2009 Kulwinder Singh ...... Appellant Versus Rajbir Singh ....... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.3.5 lacs on the basis of pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt can be decreed where the due execution of the pronote an receipt itself is not proved and moreover there is tampering in the same? ii)Whether the suit for recovery can be decreed on the basis of pronote and receipt where the passing of consideration vide that pronote and receipt is not proved? iii)Whether the judgment and decree which is totally perverse RSA No. 632 of 2007 (O&M) 2 and based on conjectures and surmises can be allowed to sustain? iv)Whether the judgment and decree which is result of misreading and non-reading of important evidence can be allowed to sustain? All the issues are actually related and are questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the entire evidence. He has particularly referred to the alleged change in the date at the foot of the receipt and has argued that actually the receipt was executed on 14.5.2000 but the last '0' has been changed into '2' so as to extend the limitation and that tampering is clear to the naked eye. However, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in the third line of the receipt the date has been correctly mentioned as 14.5.2002. He has argued that even if there is any change at the foot of the receipt the same is contemporaneous. In this view of the matter I have not been persuaded to hold that the findings of the court below are either based on no evidence or on such a misreading of the evidence that the said findings can be rendered to be perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, urged that interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is excessive. In my opinion it would be in the interest of justice if the interest is reduced to 9% p.a. With this modification this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 24, 2009 sunita