RSA No.2913 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2913 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17 .10.2011 Babu Lal Saini alias Sushil ...Appellant Vs. Ram Lal Saini Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondent. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Ram Lal Saini plaintiff/respondent (herein referred to as the plaintiff) had lodged a claim of Rs.1,20,000/- against the present appellant/defendant (herein referred as the defendant). The trial court, vide judgment dated 26.03.2009, had decreed the said suit along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till 25.03.2008 and future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed. RSA No.2913 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Precisely, the facts are that on 10.01.2004, the defendant, after receiving a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff as loan, had executed a pronote and receipt in that regard. He had also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem. The suit was contested by the defendant, wherein he took certain legal pleas inter alia that the suit is not maintainable; the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and that the suit is barred by principle of estoppel. On merits, the defendant stated that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. Pleadings of the parties gave birth to the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 2% per month from the date of agreement till payment to the plaintiff on the grounds as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has supressed material facts from the Court? OPD 5. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately the suit was decreed and appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. RSA No.2913 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Having scrutinized the judgment, it appears that both the promissory note Ex.P1 as well as receipt Ex.P.2, respectively, have been duly proved by the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to shift the onus by leading any cogent evidence. Though the defendant had taken the plea with regard to forgery of the promissory note and receipt yet he has failed to establish the said plea. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 17.10.2011 Judge rp