IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3451 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.11.2009 Bhag Singh … Appellant Versus Gurdev Singh …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.R.Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J (Oral) Gurdev Singh-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest from the defendant-Bhag Singh on the ground that defendant had taken a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.11.2003, agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 2% p.m. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2008. In appeal, the Addl. District Judge Barnala, dismissed the appeal by modifying the decree of the trial court qua interest vide judgment and decree dated 3.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The brief facts of the case as noticed by lower appellate Court in para Nos.2 to 6 of its judgment read as under:- 2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that initially the plaintiff Gurdev Singh had filed suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest against the defendant. It is averred in the plaint that on 29.11.2003, defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt in his favour. The pronote was scribed by Kirit Kumar Singla, resident of Bhadaur and receipt was also attested by Gurdev Singh, son of Nikka Singh, resident of Bhadaur. Even though, defendant had agreed to return the borrowed amount, as and when demanded but, however, RSA No.3451 of 2009 (O&M) despite the demand being raised by plaintiff, defendant failed to return the borrowed amount. Plaintiff has now sought the recovery of the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest to the extent of Rs.33,335/-. 3. In pursuance of notice issued by the court, defendant made appearance and field written statement. In the written statement, defendant raised legal objections, thereby disputing locus standi and cause of action of the plaintiff to file the present suit and also that pronote and receipt dated 29.11.2003 are forged and fabricated documents; that there are material alternations and additions in the pronote and receipt. Also, that the plaintiff has filed the present suit, only to harass the defendant and on account of which defendant is entitled to special costs of Rs.10,000/- under Section 35-A CPC. On merits, borrowing of amount of Rs..1,00,000/- on 29.11.2003 has been denied by the defendant. Also, execution of pronote and receipt and consideration thereof, has been denied. Rather, it has been pleaded that the defendant used to sell his crops in the shop of plaintiff, who is commission agent. He used to take money from plaintiff, which was settled in the sale proceeds of his crop. During this process, the plaintiff also used to obtain the signatures of the defendant, on blank papers, on the pretext to cover up certain lacuna, in his income tax return. Thereafter, when defendant went to the shop of plaintiff, to settle the account, the plaintiff refused to give the amount of the crop. Then, defendant stopped selling his crop at the shop of plaintiff. Due to this grievance, the plaintiff, in connivance with the scribe and attesting witness, has prepared, forged and fabricated the documents and falsely filed the present suit. As the defendant had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, as such, question of return of the same does not arise at all. 2 RSA No.3451 of 2009 (O&M) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendant took cash loan of Rs.1 lac from the plaintiff on 29.11.2003 and executed pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, if so, at what rate of interest? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether pronote and receipt is forged, fabricated and without consideration? OPD. 5. Whether the pronote and receipt suffers from material alterations, if so, its effect? OPD. 6. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff Gurdev Singh had filed the suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 29.11.2003 Ex.P-1 and P-2 respectively. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, the plaintiff examined the scribe as well as PW-1 Gurdev Singh son of Nikka Singh, attesting witness. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed as per the contents of the plaint. Defendant appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and took up the plea that he had never taken any loan from the plaintiff nor executed the pronote and receipt in question. He further pleaded that he was selling his crops at the shop of the plaintiff and had been made to sign certain blank papers. The defendant however, failed to establish his case. The plaintiff on the other hand had been successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt. The defendant had never filed any complaint before any authority with regard to obtaining signatures on the blank papers by the plaintiff. Both the courts after appreciating the evidence, on 3 RSA No.3451 of 2009 (O&M) record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the pronote and receipt. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered with in appeal by this Court. The learned trial Court has allowed the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt till relisation. The rate of interest was modified by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala and it was ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt till the institution of the suit and further interest was allowed at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization. Such rate of interest cannot be said on the higher side. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Dismissed. [ SABINA ] JUDGE 26.11.2009 sd 4