IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No. 8308 of 2007 and RSA No. 2994 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.1.2009 Rohi Singh … Appellant. versus Surjit Singh … Respondent Present: Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: CM No. 8308 of 2007: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 1 day in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 2994 of 2007: The present appellant, Rohi Singh, was the defendant in the suit for recovery preferred against him by plaintiff, Surjit Singh for recovery of Rs. 2,06,400/- i.e. Rs.1,60,000/- as principal amount and Rs.46,400/- as interest thereon. In the suit, plaintiff claimed that the defendant on 14.11.2000 had borrowed from him a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem after executing a promissory note and receipt in presence of witnesses but thereafter did not repay the said amount to him. The defendant in his written statement denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed a promissory note and receipt. His stand was that one Surinder Kumar, a Commission Agent, through whom he used to sell his crop and owed him some amount, used to obtain his thumb-impressions on blank papers on the pretext of getting bonus. When he found that said Surinder Kumar had started defrauding him, he settled his accounts with him after selling his land and then started selling his crop through some other commission agent and it was due to this reason, Surinder Kumar in connivance with the plaintiff got the present suit filed by forging a promissory note and receipt. RSA No. 2994 of 2007 -2- Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties have decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It has been observed that due execution of the promissory note, Exhibit P-1 and receipt, Exhibit P-2, placed on record by the plaintiff while appearing as PW- 1, was witnessed by Surinder Kumar and Janak Raj. The loan amount along with interest was not returned on demand and further, notice, Exhibit P-3, vide postal receipt Exhibit D-4 was issued to the defendant but with no result. Surinder Kumar while appearing as PW-2 denied the allegation of the defendant regarding obtaining of his thumb-impressions on blank papers. The Courts below have observed that PW-2 Surinder Kumar has fully corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff with regard to advancement of loan by the plaintiff and execution of promissory note and receipt by the defendant. The defendant has failed to shatter their testimony by way of any clinching evidence. As per evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff, Surinder Kumar is having a scooter agency and is not a commission agent as alleged by the defendant. More over, defendant while appearing as DW-1 himself has stated that he never sold his crop through the agency of Surinder Kumar and that Rajinder Kumar son of Ram Sarup might have obtained his thumb- impressions on the pretext of getting bonus for him. DW-2 Buta Singh, his own witness, also admitted that he had been never a customer of Surinder Kumar and the name of his commission agent was Jatinder Kumar. The Courts below after relying upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in P. Talamalai Chetty v. Rathinasamy, 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 706(Madras) have held that even if the story of the defendant that at the time when he put his thumb-impressions the blanks in the promissory note were not filled is accepted, then also he is deemed to have authorized the holder of that promissory note to fill in the blanks and to negotiate the instrument in view of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A further reliance has been placed upon a judgment in Hans Raj v. Surinder Singh, 1997 Important & Selected Judgments (Banking) 170, to hold that if execution of the promissory stands proved, then a presumption would arise that the defendant received the amount in question. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No RSA No. 2994 of 2007 -3- question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. January 23, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE