RSA No. 1648 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No. 1648 of 2007 Date of decision: 15.01.2008. Jambar Singh ... Appellant. Versus Joginder Singh .... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mr.D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Manish Prabhakar, Advocate, for the respondent. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree 22.01.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar, accepting the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti and decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.56, 814/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the realisation of the amount. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.41,766/- as principal and Rs.15,048/- as interest on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 25.01.2000. It was alleged that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.41,766/- on 25.1.2000 from the plaintiff and RSA No. 1648 of 2007 2 executed a pronote and receipt. One Sardool Singh had written the pronote and receipt. The defendant also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month on the said amount. However, later on, the defendant refused to pay the principal amount along with interest. The defendant in the written statement had raised the objection that the suit is barred by time and also denied the receipt of the loan and execution of the pronote and receipt. After framing of the issues, the plaintiff examined Inder Singh as PW-2, Nishan Singh as PW-3, Sardool Singh as PW-4 and he himself appeared as PW-1. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 dismissed the suit on the ground that the pronote and receipt Exs. P-1 and P-2 are result of a fraud and misrepresentation exercised by the plaintiff on the defendant. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff before the learned District Judge, Amritsar, who set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 22.01.2007. The learned Lower Appellate Court has returned a finding that the defendant has failed to prove any fraud. The learned Lower Appellate Court has also relied upon the statements of Nishan Singh and Inder Singh, PWs who are the attesting witnesses of the receipt and scribe of the documents. The learned Lower Appellate Court has also returned a finding that the pronote being promissory note carries presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on that basis the suit has been decreed and interest has been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the passing of the decree and 6% per RSA No. 1648 of 2007 3 annum from the date of the decree till realisation. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the pronote and receipt are result of fraud. The only allegation made in the plaint regarding the alleged fraud is that the defendant obtained the thumb impressions on these documents under pressure. No specific allegation of pressure and in what manner the fraud has been exercised is not mentioned in the plaint or proved by any evidence. The attesting witnesses of the receipt and the scribe of the pronote appeared as witnesses and proved the same. The judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court is based upon the appreciation of evidence and cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arises. There is no merit in the appeal. However, I find that interest at the rate of 12% per annum is excessive. Accordingly, the interest is reduced to 6% per annum throughout. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed. 15.01.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO