Civil Revision No.4451 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4451 of 2009 Date of decision : 10-8-2009 Dharampal ....Petitioner VERSUS Banwari Ram ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner challenges the judgments and decrees dated 29-3-2008 and 23-3-2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sirsa and Addl. District Judge, Sirsa decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal. The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,000/- by alleging that petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.14,000/- and thereafter executed a receipt and a pronote dated 30-07-1999. In reply, the petitioner denied the loan, the receipt and the pronote. After framing issues, the trial court directed the parties to lead evidence. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the evidence and the arguments addressed, the trial court held that pronote and receipt stood proved. The defence set up by the petitioner was rejected and the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.24,000/- with interest @2% per Civil Revision No.4451 of 2009 -2- month from 30-07-1999 to 20-07-2002 and thereafter with future interest @10% per annum. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the petitioner filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated 23-3-2009, the Additional District Judge, Sirsa dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court but reduced the interest to 6% per annum. Counsel for the petitioner submits that mere proof of the pronote and receipt did not absolve the respondent of the onus to establish his capacity to advance the loan. It is argued that mere proof of the pronote and receipt would not give rise to a presumption as to consideration, under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent is a mere teacher and therefore, could not be expected to advance a loan. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and find no reason, whether in fact or in law to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have after a considered appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed held that as the pronote and the receipt stand proved, the onus to rebut the presumption that arises under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act lay upon the petitioner. It has been held by the courts below that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence in discharge of this onus. The mere fact that the respondent is a school teacher would not lead to an inference that he could not have advanced a sum of Rs.14,000/- to the petitioner. Civil Revision No.4451 of 2009 -3- In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no error or jurisdiction is discernible from the impugned judgments, the revision is dismissed and the findings recorded by the courts below are affirmed. (RAJIVE BHALLA) 10-08-2009 JUDGE manju