RSA No. 1639 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 4880-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1639 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: April 06, 2010 Rakesh Chand ...... Appellant Versus Narinder Pal Chopra ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.M.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 4880-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, delay of 567 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1639 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1, 30,000/- on the basis of a pronote. The plea of the appellant was that the respondent is an advocate and that he had earlier obtained a loan of Rs. 80,000/- from him and had executed a pronote. It was further pleaded that the said loan of Rs.80,000/- RSA No. 1639 of 2009(O&M) 2 was returned but the original pronote was not given back to the appellant and that the said original pronote may have been misused to create the second pronote ( on the basis of which the present suit was filed). The case of the appellant is that the witnesses of the pronote being another advocate and the clerk of the creditor advocate, the whole transaction was to be viewed with suspicion. Both the Courts have, on a conspectus of the entire evidence, believed the version put forth by the respondent and decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether an income tax assessee who has not represented a loan of Rs. 1, 30,000/- having been advanced can be believed to have advanced the said loan? ii)Whether in the circumstances mentioned above, two witnesses one of them being a colleague advocate and the other being a clerk to the lender can be believed and if so believed, does it not amount to mis-appreciation of evidence? It would be seen that both the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the Courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently holding both the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. RSA No. 1639 of 2009(O&M) 3 Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 06, 2010 sunita