IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No.4236 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 10, 2011 OM PARKASH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PARSHOTAM DASS .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (Oral) CM 12779 of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, delay of 7 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. RSA 4236 of 2010 The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery has been decreed on the basis of a pronote and receipt, which have been proved by the plaintiff and the attesting witness. Counsel for the defendant-appellant has vehemently contended that the defendant-appellant had taken a loan of ` 20,000/- from Billu Ram in the year 1999 and said Billu Ram had Regular Second Appeal No.4236 of 2010 (O&M) 2 received 10 blank signed cheques and 7 blank signed pronotes and receipts from the appellant. The faith reposed in said Billu Ram has been violated by filing the suit through the plaintiff- respondent. It has been claimed that the matter was settled on 26.2.2004 in a Panchayati compromise but the suit was filed in the year 2005, on the basis of blank pronote, which had been obtained by Billu Ram. I have heard the counsel for the appellant. Above said Billu Ram had appeared as a witness being an attesting witness to the pronote. The Panchayati compromise, which is now sought to be placed on record as additional evidence, was not even put to Billu Ram (PW-2) in cross examination. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the courts below regarding the liability of the defendant- appellant accruing on the basis of the pronote, which has been proved on the record. No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is dismissed. JANUARY 10, 2011 ( M.M.S. BEDI) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? No 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?