RSA 1494 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA 1494 of 2009 Decided on 09.9.2010. Kulvinder Singh --Appellant vs. Bachittar Singh -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Vinod Khunger,Advocate, for the appellant Mr B.S.Bhalla, Advocate,for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This is defendant's second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery has been decreed. In brief, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,38,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt. In defence, it was pleaded that the plaintiff is doing the business of Commission Agent under the name and style of M/s. Green Commission Agent. The defendant was selling his crop through the plaintiff. Signatures and thumb impressions of the defendants were taken by the plaintiff on blank paper and a blank pronote. It is alleged that the said blank pronote has been converted into the disputed pronote and receipt on the basis of which suit for recovery has been filed. RSA 1494 of 2009 2 On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led by the plaintiff. The defendant did not lead any evidence nor did he enter the witness box despite availing several opportunities and last opportunity. It is recorded by both the Courts below that on 18.4.2007 learned counsel for the defendant had taken time to adduce entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility on 7.6.2007 but still no evidence was led. Resultantly, the trial court closed the evidence of the defendant by order dated 7.6.2007. The learned Courts below while appreciating the evidence available on record led by the plaintiff has observed that the plaintiff has appeared as PW-1 and has proved the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2), both dated 20.4.2003 on the basis of which the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The plaintiff had also examined marginal witnesses i.e. Pawan Kumar (PW2) and Sarabjit Singh (PW-3) . It was also observed that the defendant had also admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt but did not enter the witness box even to deny the amount having been borrowed by him or to allege fraud having been played upon him. In view of the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff and in the absence of any evidence led by the defendant, conclusion was drawn that pronote and receipt were executed by the defendants after taking the loan from the plaintiff. In this second appeal, only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant is that scribe Naresh Kumar and Sarabjit Singh (Muneem/Clerk of the plaintiff) are the attesting witnesses whose evidence could not be relied upon, being interested parties. He has also submitted that no proper opportunity was given to the appellant by the RSA 1494 of 2009 3 trial Court to lead evidence as his evidence was illegally closed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Insofar as scribe and the attesting witnesses are concerned, there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the two witnesses even if they were working as Muneem/Clerk with the plaintiff because there is no evidence led by the defendant to the contrary to rebut the pronote and receipt which bear his signatures. And as far as closure of evidence is concerned, after availing several opportunities even at his own responsibility, the defendant did not care to lead any evidence so much so that he did not appear himself in the witness box, therefore, there was no alternative left with the trial Court but to close the evidence of the defendant Thus, in my view, no fault can be attributed to the proceedings of the trial Court because the negligence was on the part of the defendant himself. As a matter of fact, no substantial question of law is raised nor involved in this appeal as contemplated under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,CPC). Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 09.9.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge RSA 1494 of 2009 4