RSA No. 2581 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2581 of 2006 Decided on : 17-04-2009 Tej Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Harbakash Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J A suit for recovery was preferred by the present respondent against the appellant. In the suit it was alleged that Sukhdev Singh, husband of the present appellant had taken a loan on 20.5.2001 and executed a pronote and receipt as a measure of acceptance thereof. He died on 26.5.2003. Since the amount was not paid it resulted in filing of the aforesaid suit. The appellant who was defendant in the suit denied the liability altogether. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 20.5.2001 are legally and validly executed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery as prayed for?OPP. 3. Whether the pronote and receipt are fabricated documents?OPD. RSA No. 2581 of 2006 2 4. Relief. Both the Courts concluded that execution of the pronote was adequately proved since the scribe of the pronote and the attesting witness were examined as PW2 and PW3. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit awarded an interest at the rate of 2% per month while in appeal the findings were affirmed with a minor modification in the interest component where the learned First Appellate Court decreed the suit with 2% interest per month as interest pendente lite and 6% interest for the future. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, defendant-appellant has preferred the present regular second appeal and it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse. It has been contended that there are serious discrepancies in the testimony of PW2 and PW3 regarding the execution of the pronote and handing over of the money. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. A perusal of the record shows that the pronote Ex.P1 and receipt P2 were adequately proved by producing the scribe and the attesting witness who appeared as PW2 and PW3 respectively. The appellant had merely denied the liability but could not substantiate her plea by explaining the existence of the pronote and the receipt. In this view of the matter, when pure findings of facts have been determined by both the Courts below regarding execution of the pronote and the execution of the receipt there is no ambiguity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. The plea of fraud which was RSA No. 2581 of 2006 3 set up by the appellant alongwith denial was never substantiated by producing any cogent evidence on record. It is settled proposition of law that the person who pleads fraud has to prove the same by bringing adequate material on record. Since there is no such material from where it could be inferred that the fraud has been played upon the husband of the appellant, the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse or erroneous so as to warrant interference in regular second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have been arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the grant of interest by both the Courts below at the rate of 2% per month pendente lite is extremely harsh and contrary to law. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant on this aspect of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal can be disposed of with slight modification in the order of the learned First Appellate Court. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of and it is directed that the respondent shall be entitled to recover the amount alongwith 9% per annum simple interest pendente lite with no variation in the rate of future interest. April 17 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge