IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.3949 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.11.2010 Ajit Singh .....Appellant Vs. Amarjit Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- None for the appellant. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate along with the respondent- Amarjit Singh. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for recovery of the plaintiff- respondent for a sum of Rs.42,500/- along with interest was decreed. On 1.4.2010, this Court passed the following order:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgments as the execution of the pronote has not been denied by the appellant. He has merely stated that it was obtained under pressure which plea he has failed to justify. He had also admitted in his written statement that he, indeed, had transactions with the respondent and the dispute arose when the respondent had charged excessive interest. It is a settled principle of law that a person, who raises a R.S.A. No.3949 of 2009 (O&M) -2- plea of fraud and coercion, has necessarily to prove the said fact. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, the plea as raised by the appellant cannot be accepted, especially when he had admitted the existence and execution of the pronote. The appeal, therefore, warrants dismissal as no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, stated that the appellant is willing to settle the matter if there is some protection in the interest component. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, notice of motion is directed to be issued to the respondent to this limited extent for 29.7.2010.” On 28.10.2010, the following order was passed:- “During the course of hearing, counsel for the appellant has offered to settle the dispute at a lump sum payment of ` 68,000/- to the respondent. Counsel for the respondent, on instruction from respondent has agreed to accept the aforesaid amount subject to the condition that the amount be paid to the respondent within two weeks. List on 15.11.2010. Let the appellant tender the aforesaid amount to the respondent on or before the next date. In case, the amount is not tendered as aforesaid, the settlement will not take place.” Today, no one is present on behalf of the appellant. Counsel R.S.A. No.3949 of 2009 (O&M) -3- for the respondent, on instructions from, Amarjit Singh, who is present in Court, states that the appellant has failed to make the payment of amount as per settlement which has taken placed before this Court on 28.10.2010. In this view of the matter, I find that as the submission of the appellant regarding amicable settlement was only to delay proceedings in this appeal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Respondent is entitled to execute the impugned judgment and decree. November 15, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE ````