R.S.A. No.1093 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1093 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 9.3.2009 Sudhan Ram ....Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Virender Singh Punia, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote. The said pronote was duly proved by producing the scribe and the attesting witness. Both the appellant and respondent have tried to prove their case by examining their respective hand- writing and finger print experts who have been disbelieved by the Courts below but relying on the evidence of the scribe and the attesting witness, who have proved the execution of the pronote, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings recorded are perverse as they have not taken into account R.S.A. No.1093 of 2009 (O&M) -2- that there were regular transactions between the appellant and the respondent about 15 years back and that the plaintiff was a money lender and he used to give money on interest. In this view of the matter, the Courts below ought to have appreciated this fact while dealing with the controversy. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that pure questions of fact have been determined by the Courts below when they answered the validity of the pronote. The plaintiff/respondent has examined the scribe and the attesting witness to bring home the point. The appellant, who pleaded that the pronote was not executed by him and disputed his signatures failed to lead any evidence to that effect. The other contentions which have been referred to in this view of the matter are rendered meaningless. No substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. That apart, the appeal is barred by a delay of 43 days. Dismissed. 9.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss