RSA No. 2847 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2847 of 2008 Date of decision: May 18,2009 Balwinder Singh son of Kehar Singh ..Appellant. Versus Surjit Singh son of Harmel Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt was decreed. In brief, the case of the plaintiff-respondent was that defendant took a cash loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 3.6.2001 and in lieu of this loan amount, the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses and further agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2 % per month. The defendant failed to return the aforesaid amount on demand. Hence this suit. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and raised various preliminary objections in the written statement. On merits, it was stated that the appellant used to sell his crop at the Commission Agency of M/s Harmel Singh Inder Singh, Commission Agents, New Grain Market, Muktsar and at that time his signatures were obtained by Darshan Singh son of the real uncle of the plaintiff who was the proprietor of the aforesaid firm on some blank pronote, receipt and stamp papers as a surety. On clearance of his account at the said commission agency, defendant demanded back the said blank pronote, receipt and the stamp papers from Darshan Singh, however, he put off the matter. The present suit has been filed after filling the said blank pronote and receipt in RSA No. 2847 of 2008 2 favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 8.85,000/- along with interest on the basis of pronote and receipt ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not within time ?OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 4. Relief. After recording evidence of both the parties, and hearing the counsel for both the parties, the findings on all the issues were returned in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed in his favour vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.7.2004 by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the defendant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 29.2.2008. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court to the effect that execution of the pronote and receipt in question and passing of the consideration to the defendant had been duly proved on the record. Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove the passing of consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the appellant and the courts below have further failed to appreciate the fact that the blank pronote and receipt which was previously signed by the appellant had been fabricated by the plaintiff-respondent and thus, the following substantial questions of law arises in this appeal:- (i) Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below are RSA No. 2847 of 2008 3 perverse and are based on misreading of evidence ? ii)Whether such a huge loan transaction of Rs. 7,50,000/- can be made in cash ? I have heard heard learned counsel for the appellant. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the appellant had taken a definite stand that he had executed blank pronote and receipt as a collateral security which had been later on fabricated as the pronote and receipt in question. However, in spite of the above said stand taken by the appellant, no evidence has been placed on record by him to prove this assertion. The contention of the appellant that the respondent has failed to prove the passing of consideration of the pronote amount to the defendant is also without any merit. The execution of the pronote and receipt in question has been duly proved on the record. Even passing of consideration amount also stands proved on the record in the light of the evidence available on the record. Under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration. There is no evidence on record to rebut the aforesaid presumption. This Court in the case of Jit Singh Versus Nachhattar Singh and others 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 137 held as under:- “In my opinion, once the plaintiff has proved that the pronote and receipt were duly executed in accordance with law, then presumption under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for passing of the consideration arises and the defendant can rebut that presumption by leading evidence.” Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law as argued by the counsel for the appellant arises in this appeal. Dismissed. May 18, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE