RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) Decided on : 06-05-2009 Wazir Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Amiran Bai and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No. 11189-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application delay of 253 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. No. 11191-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) The respondents filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.85,000/- which included Rs. 50,000/- as principal and Rs.35,000/- as interest on the basis of a pronote and receipt alleged to have been executed by the appellant-defendant. The appellant who was arrayed as defendant denied the factum of any loan having been obtained from the plaintiffs-respondents. It is pleaded that Chiman Singh husband of plaintiff-respondent no.1 and father of plaintiffs-respondents no.2 to 4 was a partner in M/s Sat Guru RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) 2 Commission Agents, New Grain Market, Fazilka and the appellant had been selling his crops at his shops for 5-6 years from 1994-95 onwards. Thereafter, he stopped having dealings with him which led to filing of a complaint by Chiman Singh and pursuant thereto a settlement was made and there is no amount due against the appellant. It is pleaded that so far as the question of loan of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, it was specifically denied. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 11.6.97 is legal and valid?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.85,000/-? If so, at what rate of interest?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Relief. Learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court concluded that the pronote had been validly executed and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs -respondents. Ld.Trial Court held as under:- “In view of my findings on issue nos. 1 and 2, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.50,000/- with costs and with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.6.97 till today and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date next after passing of this decree till actual realisation of the decretal amount. Decree-sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.” RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) 3 Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the appellant has filed the instant regular second appeal to contend that that the matter had been settled between Chiman Singh and the appellant. It was pleaded that both the Courts have recorded that he was not a partner in M/s Sat Guru Commission Agents, New Grain Market, Fazilka whereas son of Chiman Singh who prosecuted the proceedings after his death had categorically admitted that late Chiman Singh was partner in the said firm. It was pleaded that on the basis of the above it should be inferred that the case of the plaintiffs-respondents was totally false and the findings should be upset. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, following questions of law arise for the consideration of this Court:- i) Whether there is not a total mis-appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below? ii)Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are not a forged and fabricated document? iii)Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are not without consideration? I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The execution of the pronote was adequately established by examination of Ashok Kumar PW3, one of the attesting witnesses, Bagicha Singh deed-writer as PW1. Both of them testified to the execution of the pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 at the instance of Wazir Singh-appellant in favour of Chiman Singh. They also stated that the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/-. The appellant had merely denied the loan transaction RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) 4 but he had not produced any evidence to show as to whether the pronote was result of fraud, fabrication or forgery. He also could not substantiate his plea that the matter had been settled with Late Chiman Singh and nothing was due. He also placed reliance on a document which has merely been marked to support the plea which he has raised regarding the settlement of accounts with the plaintiffs-respondents after he had decided to shift his business transactions to some other commission agent. In this view of the matter looking at the circumstances in their totality when the execution of the pronote Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 had been adequately proved and the appellant had failed to substantiate his plea, findings of the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse. Questions of law framed by learned counsel for the appellant do not arise for the reason that it cannot be said that there was mis-appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below so as to warrant interference in a regular second appeal. Similarly, the pronote and the receipt had been adequately established and the plea of forgery had not been established and neither as the plea which has been raised by the appellant in the pleadings. There is thus no infirmity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below and the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. An application for additional evidence bearing C. M. no. 11192-C of 2008 has also been moved before this Court which I am afraid cannot be allowed at this stage for the reason that the appellant had not been able to show that the material which has now been sought to be produced had already been in his knowledge and the same was also produced before the Courts record and marked therein. However, no attempt was made to prove them in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of the considered RSA No. 3756 of 2008(O&M) 5 opinion that the application is totally misconceived at this stage and the same is also declined. C.M dismissed. May 06, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge