RSA No.2323 of 2008 (O&M) [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.2323 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21 - 10 - 2008 Bhajan Singh ....Petitioner v. Gian Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate for the appellant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Appellant-plaintiff has failed in two Courts below and hence has filed the present regular second appeal. Plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.1,41,321.32 paise which included Rs.83,000/- as principal amount and Rs.58,321.32 paise as interest at the rate of 2% per month. The case of the plaintiff is that amount was lent to the defendant amounting to Rs.83,000/- on 14.9.2001 and the defendant had agreed to pay the interest on the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties and in pursuance to the loan taken,a pronote and receipt was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of marginal witnesses. Further case of the RSA No.2323 of 2008 (O&M) [2] plaintiff is that original pronote and receipt dated 14.9.2001 were lost and DDR No.12 dated 24.4.2004 was got recorded at Police Station Khamano. Notice in the suit was issued. Defendant controverted all the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and raised preliminary objection that the suit is barred by act and conduct of the plaintiff. In the written statement, it was stated that the whole amount of Rs.1,34,460/- was paid to the plaintiff which included the principal and the interest. It is further stated that at the time of payment, the pronote and receipt were returned to the defendant and subsequently a DDR was got recorded by the plaintiff. After completion of the pleadings by the parties, following issues were drawn by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,41,321.32 alongwith interest as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether present suit is barred by act and conduct of the plaintiff? OPD. 3. Whether the defendant has already refunded back amount of Rs.1,34,470/- on 9.6.04, as prayed for? OPD. 4. Relief.” Both the Courts below had returned the findings that the plea raised by the plaintiff that he had lost the pronote and receipt and DDR was lodged, is a false plea because conduct of the defendant proved that the amount of pronote was paid back by him and the original pronote and receipt were produced in the Court. For this finding, the Courts have held that on the very first date when application for production of the pronote and receipt was moved, defendant produced the same in Court and took a plea that the entire amount was paid. Two contradictory versions have been given by both the parties. Evidence has been led. After appreciating the RSA No.2323 of 2008 (O&M) [3] evidence, the Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant had paid the amount. Therefore, in regular second appeal no interference is called for, especially when counsel for the petitioner has failed to formulate any substantial question of law. Hence, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) October 21, 2008. JUDGE RC