R.S.A.No. 3751 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3751 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.2.2011 Leela Singh ......Appellants Versus Pawan Kumar .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Tarsem Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 24.12.2001. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that defendant had borrowed a sum of ` 98,000/- from him on 24.12.2001 and had executed a pronote and receipt in his favour in this regard. The defendant had agreed to re-pay the said amount. However, the R.S.A.No. 3751 of 2009 (O&M) 2 defendant had failed to re-pay the amount on demand. Defendant in his written statement denied the execution of the pronote and receipt and it was averred that the defendant had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of ` 1,68,560/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 24.12.2001, if so to what extent and at what rate of interest? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated, without consideration ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2009. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on R.S.A.No. 3751 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and P-2 respectively. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff examined PW-1 Jeewan Kumar, scribe of the pronote and receipt and PW-2 Chhaju Ram, one of the attesting witnesses. The said witnesses have proved the due execution of the pronote and receipt. The appellant had failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. The pronote and receipt bear the thumb impression of the appellant. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 03, 2011 anita