IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.687 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.02.2010 Baljinder Singh ..Appellant/Defendant Versus Avtar Singh ..Respondent/Plaintiff CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant/defendant **** This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby decreeing his suit for recovery on the basis of pronote dated 27th January, 2003. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that in fact on 27th January, 2000, the appellant had borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the respondent to be returned with interest at the rate of 1.5% p.m. and had executed the pronote in this regard. The limitation for suing on that pronote expired on 26th January, 2003. On 27th January, 2003, a fresh pronote was executed and fresh signatures were obtained from the appellant (on the basis of which the instant suit was filed). The learned trial Court held that there was no consideration for the said pronote and dismissed the suit. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, held that the appellant had accepted that he had signed on the second pronote. Further, the learned Lower Appellate Court relied upon the admission of the appellant that he does not sign a pronote or receipt without understanding the contents and held that in these circumstances, the consideration for the second pronote was proved. R.S.A. No.687 of 2010 -2- The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the acknowledgment of time barred debt would extend a period of limitation? (ii) Whether execution of a pronote in relation to time barred debt would be without consideration and be unenforceable? (iii) Whether the pronote without any consideration can be enforced ? (iv) Whether the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption ? (v) Whether the non-speaking order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside ? The learned Lower Appellate Court held that by admitting that he signed the pronote and receipt after reading and understanding the same he could not thereafter raise the plea that such pronote was executed without consideration. In my opinion, this finding of fact cannot be said to be based either on no evidence or on such preverse reading of the evidence so as to render the same liable for intereference under Section 100 CPC. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant of consideration related to some other pronote cannot be accepted. In this view of finding of this fact, Question Nos.(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) do not arise. Question No.(v) is a general question. Dismissed accordingly. Since the main case has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. 16.02.2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sukhpreet JUDGE