RSA No. 3263 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3263 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 27-03-2009 Manjit Kaur and others ....Appellants VERSUS Gurmukh Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the appellants. MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No. 9769-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. No. 9770-C of 2008 C.M allowed as prayed for. RSA No.3263 of 2008 This appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 6.10.2006 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 29.9.2007. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.90,000/- alongwith interest against the appellants, alleging that amount had been borrowed by the Balbir Singh, predecessor in interest of the appellants and a pronote dated 21.2.2001 had been executed by him. The appellants denied the execution of the pronote and pleaded that in fact the amount was paid for the services of one Jagjit Singh who had made arrangements for the RSA No. 3263 of 2008(O&M) 2 study of his son at Malaysia. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant had executed a pronote an receipt pronote dated 21.2.2001 in favour of the plaintiff?OPP. 2. Whether issue no.1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt pronote in question are without consideration as alleged by the defendants?OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any interest if so, at what rate? OPP. 4. Relief. Both the Courts recorded consistent and concurrent findings that the execution of the pronote was established and determined the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are in appeal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference. It is the contended case that even if in the execution of the pronote passing of the consideration is proved yet the testimony of witnesses are at variance with each other. It is also contended that pronote was executed because of fraud. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. Both the Courts below consistently and concurrently recorded a finding of fact that execution of pronote was established beyond any doubt. There is cogent evidence on record to suggest the execution of the pronote by the Balbir Singh, predecessor in interest of the appellants. For RSA No. 3263 of 2008(O&M) 3 the first time, in his testimony he pleaded fraud even though there is no pleading to that effect. Therefore, this question could not have been gone into at all. The pronote and the receipt were duly proved. The signatures of Balbir Singh were identified by the Lambardar. Even he did not deny his signatures. A perusal of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 shows that Balbir Singh had appended his thumb impression and his signatures on the said document. In this view of the matter, when fraud was not even pleaded, the consequent evidence to that effect could not be looked into. Since pure findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below regarding the execution of the pronote, plea of the appellants that no consideration was passed was also without any basis. It is not expected of an educated person to execute a pronote without there being any passing of the consideration. The variance in the statements referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants is not so inherently fatal to the case of the plaintiff-respondent. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for the consideration of this Court and the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 27 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge