Regular Second Appeal No. 1834 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1834 of 2007 Date of decision : January 19, 2010 Krishan Singh ....Appellant versus Inderjit Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. PKS Gill, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. BS Sewak, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Krishan Singh defendant has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Inderjit Singh respondent (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) filed suit against the appellant alleging that the appellant-defendant borrowed Rs 60,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.9.2000 and executed pronote and receipt and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 5% per month but did not repay the loan amount or interest. The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 6% per annum only. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs 60,000/- as loan amount and Rs 1800/- as interest till the filing of the suit which was filed for recovery of total Regular Second Appeal No. 1834 of 2007 -2- amount of Rs 61,800/-. The defendant in the written statement while denying the plaintiff's version, interalia, pleaded that the defendant had been taking loan from the plaintiff and repaying the same for the last 20 years. Lastly defendant took loan of Rs 7500/- and repaid the same along with interest, in instalments. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kharar vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs 61,800/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2007. Still aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the defendant has appeared in the witness box and stated on oath that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and he had not executed pronote or receipt. It was also argued that bare perusal of the alleged pronote and receipt would reveal that pronote part and receipt part have been filled-in in different hand writing and the receipt might have been filled in later-on. In this context, reference was also made to statement of plaintiff as well as statement of Bhag Singh one of the attesting witnesses of the receipt. Both of them have stated that only pronote was executed and no other document was prepared. Regular Second Appeal No. 1834 of 2007 -3- I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. Pronote-cum-receipt is a single document and in common parlance it is spoken to as pronote. The plaintiff and his witness Bhag Singh have, therefore, stated that only pronote was executed. On the contrary, the defendant specifically pleaded in the written statement and also stated in the affidavit of his examination-in-chief that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and not on printed pronote-cum-receipt. However, if the plaintiff had obtained signatures of defendant on blank papers, the plaintiff would have used the same in support of his case but the plaintiff has not used any such document as alleged by the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant in his cross-examination even denied his signatures on power of attorney. Moreover, it was suggested to the plaintiff as well as Bhag Singh in cross-examination that signatures of the defendant had been obtained on blank pronote and receipt. It is, thus, manifest that the defendant's own version is highly inconsistent and contradictory. Moreover by making aforesaid suggestion to plaintiff and Bhag Singh, the defendant has admitted his signatures on the pronote-cum-receipt on which the plaintiff has based his claim. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the plaintiff had filed another suit against defendant for recovery of amount on the basis of another pronote and if the defendant had not returned the amount of that pronote of the year 1998, the plaintiff would not have lent further amount to the defendant. This contention also cannot be accepted because the other suit was filed subsequent to the present suit. It would mean that when the loan involved in the present suit was advanced, there Regular Second Appeal No. 1834 of 2007 -4- was no dispute regarding non return of the other loan amount. On the other hand, it is the case of both the parties that the defendant had been taking loans from the plaintiff from time to time. Consequently, if the plaintiff advanced second loan while first loan was outstanding, it would not make the plaintiff's version un-reliable. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below holding that the plaintiff gave loan of Rs 60,000/- to the defendant who executed pronote-cum-receipt. The said finding of fact is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in regular second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 19, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'