RSA No.409 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.409 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 2, 2010. M/s Ram Lal Hari Chand Goyal & Sons ...Appellant(s) v. Bhushan Kumar ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Rupam K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff- respondent along with interest has been decreed. The plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for recovery against the appellant alleging that the appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/-, for expanding his business, from him and agreed to pay interest @ 18% per annum. The aforesaid amount was advanced to the appellant vide cheque No.227544 dated 10.5.1999 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Kotkapura from the account of the respondent which was duly encashed by the appellant. It was further submitted that at the time of filing of the suit, a sum of Rs.1,32,622/- was due and recoverable from the appellant as per the accounts of the respondent. Since the appellant failed to pay the same, the present suit was filed. RSA No.409 of 2010 -: 2 :- The averments of the suit were denied by the appellant and it was submitted that he had not taken any loan. However, on appreciation of evidence, the courts below decreed the suit with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% from the date of decree till its realization. The only contention raised before this court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the courts below have not given proper opportunity to the appellant to defend his case and his evidence to prove his assertion that he has not taken any loan vide Ex.P1 and P2 could not be proved. According to him, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “Whether the judgment and decrees of both the courts are liable to be set aside as both the courts have taken erroneous view by taking into consideration the evidences which were not proved as per law Ex.P1 and Ex.P2?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, however, I find no merit in the contention raised. Admittedly, the defendant-appellant did not lead any evidence in spite of the fact that a number of opportunities were granted to him and ultimately his evidence was closed by order of the court dated 25.5.2007. The aforesaid order closing his evidence was never challenged by him. Even no grievance was raised before the lower appellate court with regard to closing of evidence. Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts which do not require interference by this court while exercising its power under Section 100 of the CPC. RSA No.409 of 2010 -: 3 :- No other point was urged. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. February 2, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge