IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1724 of 2008 Date of Decision : 25.2.2010 Malkiat Singh ....Appellant Versus Rajwinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.I.S.Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant suit for recovery on the basis of pronote was initially decreed by the learned trial court but in appeal the findings were reversed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has assailed the findings of the first Appellate Court recorded in its judgment dated 18.12.2007 to contend that the same are perverse and are totally contrary to the record. The first Appellate Court while dismissing the suit had observed that the cross-examination of the appellant clearly reveals that the entire amount as mentioned in the pronote had been adjusted at the time of execution of the sale deed by defendant No.3 in his favour. I have gone through the said statement of the appellant R.S.A.No.1724 of 2008 -2- with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the finding recorded by the first Appellate Court is absolutely correct. The appellant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the entire amount in question had been adjusted at the time of execution of the sale deed and as such the pronote stood satisfied. Consequently, the finding of fact recorded on the basis of the appellant's own testimony cannot be disturbed by way of interference in the regular second appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could have filed a suit for the recovery of entire amount but instead chose to file a suit for half of the amount and from where his bona fides should be inferred cannot be accepted in view of the categoric statement of the appellant which was made during the course of his testimony. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 25.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss