R.S.A. No.2972 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.2972 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 2.3.2010 Ranjit Singh .... Appellant VERSUS Charanjit Kaur .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.L. Singla, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J. The Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 25.7.2007 and 24.3.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Moga (for short `the first appellate Court'), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed and the appeal of the defendant/appellant was dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,84,920/- on the basis of pronote. The defendant took a loan from the plaintiff in April, 2000 and a pronote was executed, but the said amount was not returned. The defendant/appellant pleaded forgery. He set up a plea that the said amount had already been paid in May, 2000. R.S.A. No.2972 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,84,920/- from the defendant on the basis of pronote and receipt?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest? If so, at what rate?OPP. 3. Whether the pronote and receipt are not properly stamped and cancelled? OPD. 4. Whether suit is not within time?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD. 6. Relief. Both the Courts returned a finding that an amount of Rs.1,38,000/- was due to the respondent, which amount has not been paid. In fact, a perusal of the material on record shows that in 1997 also the appellant had taken a loan from the respondent which probably he paid in May 2000, but in April, 2000, he took another loan of Rs.1,38,000/-, which amount is in question and did not repay. This becomes evident from the cross-examination of the appellant, wherein he had admitted that he has taken a loan on 8.4.2000, but pleaded that he had returned this amount. Unfortunately, he had not pleaded about obtaining of this loan or the repayment thereof in his written statement. Consequently, the Courts were right in discarding this plea, which he has sought to introduce in his testimony. It is settled principle of law that no evidence can be looked into if there is no categoric pleading R.S.A. No.2972 of 2009 (O&M) -3- regarding the same on record. The material on record is sufficient to show that the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law, has been shown to have arisen for determination in this appeal which is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed. The application for stay is also dismissed in view of above. 2nd March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE