RSA No. 1033 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 3026-C and 3027-C of 2010 and RSA No. 1033 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 09 , 2010 Dalip ...... Appellant Versus Mukesh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu , Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 3026-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed. The deficiency of the Court fee in filing the present appeal is made good. CM No. 3027-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 34 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1033 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery on the basis RSA No. 1033 of 2010(O&M) 2 of pronote. Both the Courts concurrently held that the respondent had been able to prove the due execution of the pronote and consequently decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- I. Whether the impugned judgments an decrees passed by the courts below are perverse, wrong, illegal and against the law and facts on the file and are liable to be set aside in the present appeal? II.Whether the plaintiff/respondent has fully proved the execution of the alleged pronote especially when the scribe of the pronote is their own Munim? III.Whether a pronote which is allegedly executed in suspicious circumstances can be believed? It would be seen that the questions are all pure questions of fact. The only point argued by learned counsel is question No. II. In my opinion there is no warrant in law for holding that the Munim cannot scribe a pronote. As mentioned above both the courts have on fact found that respondent was able to prove the due execution of the pronote. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the Courts below recorded on the aforesaid question but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 09 , 2010 sunita