RSA No. 789 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 789 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.4.2011. Rupinderjit Kaur .......Appellant Vs. Darshana Devi ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. D.S.Malwai, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronotes and receipts dated 14.9.2004 and 5.1.2005 The case of the plaintiff in brief was that on 14.9.2005, defendant had borrowed `. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and had agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per month as and when it was demanded. Defendant had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff, after acceptance of the loan amount. Defendant again took a loan of `. 1,70,000/- from the plaintiff on 5.1.2005 and agreed to return the same along with interest @ 2% per month. Defendant had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in this regard. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the RSA No. 789 of 2011 (O&M) -2- contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff was running a Chit Fund Committee. The first group was completed by 14.5.2006 and the second group was completed on 5.5.2006. After the completion of the groups, the plaintiff had failed to return the pronotes and recipets to the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant had obtained loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- and then Rs. 1,70,000/- from plaintiff against respective pronotes and receipts dated 14.9.2004 and 5.1.2005 as alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of amount as prayed for in plaint? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file present suit? OPD 4. Whether referred pronote and receipt dated 14.9.2004 and 5.1.2005 are without consideration and were executed as surety for committee amounts as alleged? OPD 5. Whether suit is liable to be dismissed with special cost? OPD 6. Relief.” Trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.2010, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. RSA No. 789 of 2011 (O&M) -3- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery basing his claim on the pronotes and receipts Ex. P-1 and Ex.P-2 dated 14.9.2004 and Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 dated 5.1.2005. A perusal of the said pronotes and receipts reveal that the same are duly signed by the defendant. The pronotes and receipts also bear the photographs of defendant, which have been duly signed/crossed by the defendant. In order to prove the due execution of the pronotes and receipts, plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and also examined the scribe Inderjit Dhunna as PW-1 and Ram Lal, attesting witness to receipt (Ex. P-2) as PW-2. The appellant, on the other hand, had failed to establish her plea that the pronotes and receipts had been got issued by the respondent due to chit fund/committees. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronotes and receipts in question were duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, after borrowing the loan amount. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 08, 2011 Gurpreet