RSA No. 1268 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1268 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2011. Darshan Singh .......Appellant Vs. Hem Raj ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on a pronote and receipt dated 20.4.2002. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in question and averred that the same were a result of fraud. The defendant had stopped selling his crop at the shop of the plaintiff and due to this reason, the plaintiff had used the blank pronote and receipt obtained from the defendant by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount? OPP RSA No. 1268 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest, if so, at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the pronote and receipt in question are forged and fabricated documents? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 6. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.2009 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery basing his claim on the pronote and receipt dated 20.4.2002. The pronote and receipt were duly thumb marked by the defendant. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined PW-2 Ram Gopal, attesting witness to the receipt. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. The said witnesses deposed qua the due execution of the pronote and receipt. The defendant, however, did not appear in the witness box to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, an adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the defendant. In these circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to succeed. RSA No. 1268 of 2010 (O&M) -3- No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Gurpreet