RSA No.2481 of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 14.07.2008. Amarjit Singh ... Appellant Versus Ram Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.S.S. Bhinder, Advocate,for the appellant. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate,for the respondent. PERMOD KOHLI, J. Respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,14,630/- against the defendant-appellant herein. The suit was instituted on the basis of a pronote and receipt allegedly executed by the defendant while borrowing an amount of Rs.83,000/- on 16.12.2001 at village Jangiana. The defendant denied the execution of the aforesaid documents and further pleaded that on 01.03.1996, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.38,700/- as cash loan from one Jalaur Singh son of Hajoora Singh of village Jangiana and executed a pronote and receipt which was scribed by Rasbhinder Kumar of the same village. The interest rate agreed to be paid was 2.5% per month. After one year as per the agreed rate of interest, the amount was calculated and a pronote equivalent to the principal and interest accrued thereon was executed in favour of Jalaur Singh and the previous pronote was received back by the defendant. This process was RSA No.2481 of 2006 -2- repeated in the year 1998, 1999, and 2000 on the dates specified in the written statement. According to the defendant, in the year 1999 two pronotes were got executed from the defendant in favour of Kartar Singh and another in favour of Ram Singh. As far the amount against the pronote executed in favour of Kartar Singh is concerned, the same was paid in cash, however, afresh pronote was executed in favour of the plaintiff after the expiry of one year for an amount of Rs.82,000/-. It is further pleaded that no cash amount was received by defendant against the pronote and receipt in question. As many as six issues were framed. However, contentious issue is issue No.1 which reads as under:- 1.Whether defendant borrowed Rs.83,800/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff in lieu thereof? OPP The plaintiff examined Gurmail Singh, marginal witness to the receipt. On the basis of the material on record the learned trial Court ruled that the defendant has failed to prove transactions specified in his written statement and the plaintiff has proved the due execution of the pronote and the receipt and there being statutory presumption in favour of the pronote, the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovery. Accordingly, a decree for recovery came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant vide judgment and decree dated August 06, 2005. However, the interest was reduced to 12% per RSA No.2481 of 2006 -3- annum from the date of pronote till the date of suit and pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation has also been awarded. The defendant challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Bathinda, who has affirmed the decree of trial Court vide his judgment and decree dated 06.03.2006 and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at legnth. The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that the prontoe in question is without any consideration and no decree can be passed on that basis. This argument is not available to the appellant for the simple reason that both the learned Courts have concurrently held that the defendant has failed to prove various transactions specified in the written statement regarding the execution of the pronotes and receipts and to the contrary the plaintiff has established the execution of the pronotes and receipts relied upon by him. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Charan Dass and Co. Vs. Ram Parshad (deceased) through his L.Rs., 2002 (2) RCR (Civil), 194, wherein the following observations have been made:- “It is proved on the record that the parties had the dealings earlier and the pronote in question was executed after settling the accounts. In this view RSA No.2481 of 2006 -4- of the matter, it has to be presumed that there was a past consideration and in view of that consideration the pronote was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. No costs. 14.07.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO