RSA No. 133 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 133 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011. Jammu Ram .......Appellant Vs. Krishan Lal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of ` 1,96,500/- basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 16.1.2002. Defendant, in his written statement denied the contentions, made in the plaint. The execution of the pronote and receipt in question were denied by the defendant. It was further averred that pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. Defendant had been selling his agricultural crop through commission agency of M/s Mangat Ram Kashmiri Lal. The said Kashmiri Lal, plaintiff Krishan Lal, Surinder Kumar and Duni Chand had formed a group and were defrauding innocent and poor farmers. A dispute arose between the defendant and Kashmiri Lal qua payment of interest and due to this reason false suit had been filed by the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were RSA No. 133 of 2010 (O&M) -2- framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant had borrowed a sum of `. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on interest at the rate of 2% per month and executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on 16.1.2002, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed and concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD 4. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 3.1.2008, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed suit for recovery basing his claim on the pronote and receipt Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-2, respectively dated 16.1.2002. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff examined attesting witnesses Dilbagh Chand as PW-3 and Mohar Singh as PW-4. Plaintiff also examined the scribe Ram Parkash as PW-1 and himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The defendant had, however, failed to rebut the said evidence. Moreover, there is nothing on the RSA No. 133 of 2010 (O&M) -3- record to suggest that the thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt were not of the defendant. The defendant had failed to establish that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents, by leading any evidence in this regard. Merely because some other pronotes and receipts had also been executed by some other persons in favour of the plaintiff was no ground to disbelieve the execution of the pronote and receipt in question. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 23, 2011 Gurpreet