RSA No.3857 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3857 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20 - 7 - 2011 Sadhu Singh ....Appellant v. Mota Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.J.S.Riar, Advocate for Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the appellant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. In CM No.11534-C of 2010 C.M. is allowed. Exemption is granted as prayed for. RSA No.3857 of 2010 The present Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by the defendant to the suit. Plaintiff-respondent-Mota Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,51,600/- from the defendant-appellant. Plaintiff-respondent had raised his claim on the basis of a pronote and a receipt dated 28.9.1999. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that the defendant-appellant took a loan of Rs.1,85,000/- and had duly executed a pronote and issued a receipt. It was further pleaded that defendant-appellant had promised to return the amount along with interest @ 2% per month, but in spite of numerous requests having been made and reminders given, principal amount of Rs.1,85,000/- along with Rs.66,600/- being interest calculated @ 1% per RSA No.3857 of 2010 (O&M) [2] month, totaling Rs.2,51,600/-, has not been paid. The amount is due to the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant having failed to pay, cause of action arose to the plaintiff-respondent. Hence, he filed the present suit. Upon notice, defendant-appellant caused appearance and filed the written statement. He raised preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable and was also time barred. It was further pleaded that pronote and receipt were not admissible, as they were not properly stamped. On merits, it was stated that Iqbal Singh son of the defendant-appellant had purchased one tractor from the plaintiff-respondent and had promised to pay the installments to the banker directly. A sum of Rs.45,000/- was paid to the banker of the plaintiff-respondent in two installments after the tractor was purchased. It was stated that the plaintiff-respondent had purchased the tractor after the same was financed by the Bank. It was stated that the alleged pronote and receipt were got executed from the defendant-appellant for Rs.1,85,000/- in favour of Mota Singh and this was made subject matter of a criminal case under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. After completion of the pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,51,600/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 28.9.1999? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is stopped to file the present suit as detailed in objection No.4 of the written statement? OPD 5. Relief. Plaintiff-respondent himself appeared as PW1 and also RSA No.3857 of 2010 (O&M) [3] examined Gurdev Singh an attesting witness of the receipt as PW2. Scribe of the pronote and receipt Rajinder Pal Mehta appeared as PW3. In defence, defendant-appellant appeared as his own witness as DW2 and also examined Chaman Lal Goyal as DW1. The trial Court analysed and discussed the evidence and came to conclusion that the plea raised by the defendant-appellant that on the pretext for sale of tractor to Iqbal Singh son of the defendant-appellant, the pronote and receipt were got executed from him (defendant), is not tenable. The Court further held that due execution of the pronote is proved and, therefore, it is to be presumed that it was executed for consideration. The plea raised that without paying a single penny, documents i.e. pronote and receipt were executed, was discarded by the trial Court. Thus, issues No.1 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellant. The Court further held that since the defendant- appellant had not pressed issues No.2 and 4, they were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The Court passed the decree for recovery of Rs.2,51,000/- along with future interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,85,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. The lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings returned by the trial Court. Mr.J.S.Riar, Advocate appearing for Mr.B.S.Bhalla, counsel for the appellant has stated that no reliance can be placed upon the pronote and receipt, as they were result of a fraud. On the asking of the Court as to what substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court, counsel has referred to para 8 of the grounds of appeal wherein he has formulated RSA No.3857 of 2010 (O&M) [4] the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Court below failed to appreciate that the dispute was not of the pronote rather the dispute was regarding the payment of the tractor? (ii) Whether the oral as well as documentary evidence has not been properly read by the Court below? Having perused the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court is of the view that the Courts below have analysed and dissected the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant. After appreciation, both the Courts below have held that since execution of the pronote and receipt is admitted, the story coined by the defendant-appellant that his son has purchased the tractor from the plaintiff-respondent and had agreed to pay the loan amount to the banker is not worth credence. Both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon the evidence led by the plaintiff- respondent and furthermore they rightly held that there is a presumption in favour of the pronote executed between the parties and the defendant- appellant has failed to rebut the same. The proposed substantial questions of law call for only re-appreciation of evidence. Such a course is not permissible in the Regular Second Appeal. Therefore, the proposed substantial questions of law are to be discarded as they in no way call for any adjudication of legal issues. Under the garb of these questions, counsel seeks reevaluation and re-appraisal of the evidence, which this Court shall refrain to do. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 20, 2011. JUDGE RC RSA No.3857 of 2010 (O&M) [5]