RSA No.890 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.890 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.3.2011 Amrik Singh ......Appellant Versus Tarsem Chand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda,Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 5.1.2000 executed by the defendant in his favour. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff was a money lender and was running the business without any requisite licence. The execution of the pronote and receipt by the defendant was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.3,09,240/-?OPP RSA No.890 of 2011 (O&M) 2 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest?OPP 3.Wheher suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Relief” The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2010 with the modification to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead of 8% per annum as allowed by the trial Court. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as he was doing the business of money lender without a requisite licence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Nikoo Ram Ashok Kumar vs. Jagtar Singh 2005(2) PLR 794 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 5.1.2000. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined Janak Raj-Scribe of pronote (Exhibit P1) and receipt (Exhibit P2) as PW1 and Veer Bhan-attesting witness as PW2. Plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW4 and examined PW5- Navdeep Gupta, handwriting and finger print expert, who after comparing the disputed thumb impressions of defendant on the pronote and receipt with his standard thumb impression, gave RSA No.890 of 2011 (O&M) 3 his opinion that the same were by one and the same person. The witnesses examined by the plaintiff,thus, duly proved the due execution of the pronote and receipt by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant, on the other hand, took up the plea that the plaintiff was the son of Panna Lal. Defendant used to sell his crop through the firm of Panna Lal. Panna Lal and his firm had filed false cases against 20 persons. Plaintiff did not possess any licence of money lender. In his cross-examination, defendant, however, admitted that the plaintiff had no concern with the commission agency firm Panna Lal Sat Narayan. Defendant, had,thus, failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff qua due execution of the pronote and receipt. As per the evidence led by the plaintiff, the pronote and receipt are duly thumb marked by the defendant. A presumption arises that the same were executed by the defendant after accepting the amount in question. Defendant failed to establish that the pronote and receipt in question were the result of fraud. Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D7 proved on record by the defendant relate to the suits filed by M/s Lakshmi Chand Rakesh Kumar which is commission agency firm or by Panna Lal Sat Narayan which is the another commission agency firm. Admittedly, the plaintiff has no concern with the said firms . Exhibit D8 is the civil suit filed by Sat Narayan,brother of the plaintiff. Since none of the civil suits had been filed by the plaintiff qua recovery, therefore, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff could not be described as a money lender. In these circumstances, the argument raised by the learned RSA No.890 of 2011 (O&M) 4 counsel for the appellant that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable as he was not having the requisite licence of money lender is without any force. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly executed by the defendant and the plaintiff was not doing the business of money lending. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE March 30, 2011 arya