RSA No.24 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.24 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 11.01.2010. Vikram Singh .……Appellant Versus Nand Gopal ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.118-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 54 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal. At the outset, it has to be mentioned that the instant second appeal has been preferred by Vikram Singh defendant against Nand Gopal plaintiff, as mentioned in the opening sheet of the appeal at page 5 of the paper book, but in memo of parties at page 9, Nand Gopal is mentioned as appellant whereas Vikram Singh is mentioned as respondent. Office to make necessary correction in the memo of parties by depicting Vikram Singh as appellant and Nand Gopal as respondent. Nand Gopal filed suit for recovery of Rs.40000/- i.e Rs.30000/- as principal amount and Rs.10000/- as interest thereon RSA No.24 of 2010 (O & M) -2- alleging that the defendant borrowed Rs.30000/- from the plaintiff on 03.07.2004 and agreed to repay the same with interest thereon at the rate of 1.50% per month and executed necessary pro-note and receipt for the same, but the defendant failed to repay the aforesaid amount and interest. The defendant alleged that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff and in fact, defendant's mother had been purchasing grocery items from Sham Lal, scribe of the pro-note and receipt, and said Sham Lal had obtained thumb impressions and signatures of the defendant on certain documents on the pretext that the same were required for being submitted before Sales Tax and Income Tax Authorities in connection with sale of grocery articles. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narwana vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2009 dismissed the suit. However, in appeal preferred by the plaintiff, learned District Judge, Jind vide impugned judgment and decree dated 10.08.2009 partly allowed the appeal and partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff with cost for recovery of Rs.30000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till date of decree of appellate Court and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Following substantial questions of law are said to be arising in the instant second appeal as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the appeal:- RSA No.24 of 2010 (O & M) -3- “(i) Whether the execution of pronote Ex.P-1 and receipt Ex.P-2 has been or has not been proved? (ii) Whether the testimony of PW-1 can be believed and relied upon? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Learned First Appellate Courts are perverse? (iv) Whether the Ld. First Appellate Courts has misread the evidence on record while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court?” However, perusal of the aforesaid questions reveals that all the said questions are questions of facts and not questions of law much less substantial questions of law. Second appeal can't be entertained on question of facts. It could be entertained only on substantial questions of law. In the instant case, however, no substantial question of law arises for determination. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the pronote in question is undated and, therefore, no presumption of consideration can be raised under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The contention cannot be accepted. The question of presumption regarding consideration would also be a question of fact as to whether the consideration was paid or not. Moreover, no such question of law has even would raised by the appellant in paragraph 7 of the grounds of appeal. In addition to the aforesaid, the aforesaid contention has no foundation inasmuch as pronote-cum-receipt is a single document and date is written at the bottom thereof against the relevant column. In the printed form of pronote-cum-receipt as shown by counsel for the appellant, there is no column for date in the first part i.e pronote and there is only one column for date in the entire document and the date RSA No.24 of 2010 (O & M) -4- has been written therein. Consequently, it cannot be said that the pronote is undated. Moreover, the defendant even in his written statement admitted that his thumb impression and signatures had been obtained on certain documents by Sham Lal on 03.07.2004. Consequently, the aforesaid contention raised by counsel for the appellant has no substance and the finding of the appellate Court against the defendant-appellant is well-founded and well-reasoned and does not call for any interference in second appeal. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 11.01.2010 A. Kaundal