RSA No.203 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.203 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 26.3.2010 Hem Raj ......Appellant(s) Versus Harbans Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.685-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.686-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. CM No.687-CII of 2010 Prayer in this application is for allowing the applicant-appellant to file this appeal as an indigent person. Since this appeal is being disposed of on merits, no separate order is required to be passed on this application. RSA No.203 of 2010 This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 7.5.2002 was decreed, along with future interest at the RSA No.203 of 2010(O&M) 2 rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. As per averments, the defendant-appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 15% per annum and executed a pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses in lieu of the aforesaid consideration. Despite repeated requests, the appellant failed to make the repayment which necessitated the filing of this suit. Upon notice, the suit was contested by the appellant alleging that the pronote and receipt was without any consideration. However, it was further submitted that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent in August, 1999 and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 30% per annum with half yearly rests on the said amount. Since he could not return the said amount, the respondent got executed a pronote and receipt from him. No witness was present at that time. It was further stated that the plaintiff-respondent purchased goods from him for a sum of Rs.43,600/- on credit. He has also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- at the time of marriage of his son. On another occasion, a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to the plaintiff.-respondent He had asked the plaintiff to settle the accounts with him but to no effect. The remaining allegations were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below found that execution of pronote and receipt in question was admitted by the appellant who had raised the plea that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent which he could not repay and thus, the plaintiff- respondent got executed pronote and receipt in question from him. The appellant had also taken a plea that he had returned some amount and also sold goods to the plaintiff-respondent. The Courts below on RSA No.203 of 2010(O&M) 3 appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant had failed to prove his assertion with regard to plea raised by him in his defence. Even the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to find fault with the findings recorded by the Courts below which are essentially finding of fact. No substantial argument has been raised in defence in support of the appeal. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE