Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010 Date of decision : December 15, 2010 Arjun Singh ....Appellant versus Gurdev Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms Natasha Monga, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Arjun Singh who was successful in the trial court but remained unsuccessful in the lower appellate court has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Gurdev Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant alleging that on 1.6.2007, defendant borrowed Rs 5,12,225/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.40 % per month but the defendant failed to pay the principal and interest amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed Rs 5,12,225/- as the principal amount and Rs 89,639.34 as interest till filing of the suit at the aforesaid agreed rate. The plaintiff, thus, filed suit for recovery of total amount of Rs 6,01,864.34. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations. Defendant Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010 -2- denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that he had approached the plaintiff to borrow some money but the plaintiff expressed his helplessness to lend any money to the defendant. The plaintiff asked the plaintiff to execute pronote and receipt in his favour assuring that the plaintiff would send the amount to the house of the defendant later on. However, the plaintiff neither paid the amount nor returned the pronote and receipt. The alleged pronote and receipt are without consideration and result of fraud and misrepresentation. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2010 dismissed plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and stated according to his version. He also examined Major Singh PW2 one of the attesting witnesses of the pronote-cum-receipt. He also supported the plaintiff's case. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as DW1 and stated according to his own version. The plaintiff's case is supported by attesting witness of the pronote-cum-receipt. The plaintiff and Major Singh PW have stated that defendant executed pronote and receipt after receiving loan amount of Rs Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010 -3- 5,12,225/-. Defendant has admitted his signatures on pronote-cum-receipt. In fact, even in the written statement, the defendant has admitted the execution of the pronote and receipt although allegedly without consideration and being result of fraud and misrepresentation However, solitary, bald and oral statement of the defendant is not sufficient to prove alleged fraud and misrepresentation. In addition to it, the defendant stated that his signatures had been obtained on blank pronote and receipt. However, the defendant also admitted that the pronote and receipt have been filled in by him i.e. in his own handwriting. It would depict that signatures of defendant had not been obtained on blank pronote and receipt. It would also depict that the defendant duly executed the pronote-cum- receipt by himself filling in the same. Thus, defendant's own version and testimony further corroborate the plaintiff's case. Presumption of consideration arising under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has not been rebutted by the defendant's bald testimony. Consequently, there is presumption that the pronote was executed for consideration. The said presumption is further strengthened by cogent evidence led by the plaintiff and also by defendant's own admissions referred to hereinbefore. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff admitted that there was relationship of faith and confidence between the parties and they used to lend money to each other and this circumstance supports the defendant's version that he handed over the pronote to the plaintiff having faith in him, as rightly observed by the trial court. The contention cannot be accepted. It was because of faith and confidence that Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010 -4- the plaintiff gave loan of Rs 5,12,225/- to the defendant. There was no necessity for the defendant to hand over duly executed pronote and receipt to the plaintiff without receiving the money. If the plaintiff had promised to send the money later on to the defendant, the defendant would also have kept the pronote and receipt with him and would have given the same to the plaintiff later on at the time of handing over of the money by the plaintiff to the defendant. There was no occasion for the defendant to have given the duly executed pronote and receipt to the plaintiff in advance. This version of the defendant is further falsified by his own version. Defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff expressed helplessness in giving money as asked for by the defendant as loan. If the plaintiff expressed helplessness to advance the money, there was no occasion for the defendant to have handed over the duly executed pronote and receipt to the plaintiff. The trial court observed that the pronote is for odd amount. However, this cannot be a ground to discard the pronote. If the defendant wanted odd amount, there is nothing abnormal or wrong in it. Moreover, when the defendant himself filled in the said amount in the pronote and receipt, it would depict that he was borrowing the said odd amount and not amount in round figures. Lower appellate court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly come to finding in favour of plaintiff- respondent. The said finding is fully justified by evidence on record including defendant's own admissions and supported by cogent reasons. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal as the same cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. On the other hand, the finding recorded by the lower appellate court is the only Regular Second Appeal No. 4794 of 2010 -5- reasonable view of the material on record. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is bereft of any material and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 15, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'