R.S.A.No. 1242 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1242 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.9.2009 Rupinder Kaur ......Appellant Versus Harbans Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Harbans Singh filed a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) for recovery of Rs.4,20,000/-, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Mansa, vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were modified and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.3,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount from the date of borrowing till the decision of the suit by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate R.S.A.No. 1242 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Brief facts of the case of plaintiff are that on 4.6.2003, defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from plaintiff on interest @ 2% per month and executed a pronote and receipt on the same day in favour of plaintiff and signed the pronote and receipt in the presence of the witnesses. The witnesses also put their attestation on the receipt. Defendant has not paid any amount out of the principal amount. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest as agreed w.e.f. 4.6.2003 till re- payment. Defendant was requested after showing the original pronote and receipt to pay the principal amount alongwith interest, but defendant refused to make the payment despite issuance of registered notice. Hence, this suit. 3. Notice of the suit was served upon defendant on prescribed proforma, who appeared through her counsel. Accordingly, summons for judgment were served on 1.8.2007, upon which, defendant filed an application for leave to defend the suit, notice of which was given to the plaintiff. In the application, it is pleaded that defendant is in possession of solid proof and on the basis of which, suit is likely to be dismissed.” R.S.A.No. 1242 of 2009 (O&M) 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 4.6.2003 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant. The defendant appeared before the trial Court and applied for leave to defend the suit. However, it was simply stated in the application that the defendant was in possession of solid proof to defend the suit. Both the Courts below, in these circumstances, rightly held that the application for leave to defend was liable to be dismissed as the defendant had failed to spell out any reason for seeking leave to defend. Simply stating in the application that the defendant had solid proof to defend the suit was not sufficient to allow the application for leave to defend. When the defendant appeared in the Court through her counsel, no objection was raised that the copy of the pronote and receipt had not been supplied to her. A perusal of the copy of pronote and receipt (shown during the course of arguments) reveals that the same are duly signed by the appellant. Hence, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 02, 2009 anita