R.S.A.No. 1631 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1631 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.7. 2009 Malook Singh ......Appellant Versus Gurdarshan Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Gurdarshan Singh filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 3.6.2002 executed by defendant Malook Singh. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Phul vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2007. However, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside by Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 11.3.2008 and the R.S.A.No. 1631 of 2008 2 suit of the plaintiff for recovery was decreed. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Appellant filed suit by claiming as if respondent borrowed sum of Rs.2 lac from him on June 3, 2002 by agreeing to pay interest @ 2% per month. Pronote and receipt in this respect were duly executed by respondent in favour of appellant. Amount was payable on demand, but despite that neither principal amount and nor any amount of interest paid despite repeated demands. 3. Suit contested by claiming as if pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents got prepared in connivance with Pawan Kumar and Vijay Kumar witnesses. Material additions and alterations in pronote and receipt also alleged. Appellant despite being money lender has not obtained licence of money lending. Suit is filed with a view to harass respondent. Respondent never borrowed the loan amount and nor agreed to repay back the same with interest @ 2% per month. Respondent had been selling his agricultural produce at shop of appellate. Appellant fraudulently obtained signatures of respondent on some blank papers. Appellat had been forging the signatures of respondent on J forms. Pronote R.S.A.No. 1631 of 2008 3 and receipt in question were never executed by respondent. Other averments of the plaint also denied.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant has borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and in lieu thereof executed the pronote and receipt, relied upon by the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated and without consideration? OPD 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount along with interest as prayed for? OPD 5. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal does not warrant interference by this Court. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 7.6.2002 for domestic purposes and had executed a pronote and receipt (Ex.P-1 and P-2 respectively) in his favour. In order to prove the execution of pronote and receipt, the plaintiff examined Pawan Kumar (PW-1), one of the attesting witnesses of the transaction. Plaintiff himself appeared in R.S.A.No. 1631 of 2008 4 the witness box as PW-2 in support of his case. A perusal of the pronote and receipt reveals that these are duly signed by defendant Malook Singh. Since the pronote and receipt are duly singed by the defendant and the plaintiff as well as PW-1 Pawan Kumar has duly proved the execution of the pronote and receipt, there is no ground to discard the pronote and receipt. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was an over writing with regard to the rate of interest. A perusal of the pronote reveals that the rate of interest has been changed from 2% to 1 ½ %. This is rather for the benefit of the appellant. Morever, there is nothing on record to suggest that such cutting was made after execution of the pronote and receipt. Hence, there is no force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the pronote was a fabricated document. There is also no force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that no reliance could be placed on the receipt as it was mentioned therein that the amount had been paid by Pawan Kumar. A perusal of the receipt Ex.P-2 reveals that it has been executed by defendant Malook Singh. It also bears the signatures of defendant Malook Singh on the revenue stamp, which has been duly crossed. It appears that inadvertently it has been filled in the receipt that the amount had been paid by Pawan Kumar instead of Malook Singh. The pronote and receipt are to be read together and moreover by reading the receipt as a whole, it is evident that the same was R.S.A.No. 1631 of 2008 5 executed by defendant Malook Singh after receiving the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- vide promote Ex.P-1. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2009 anita