R.S.A. No. 1160 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1160 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.3.2009 Balbir Singh ....Appellant Versus Ram Gopal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendant's second second appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 24.7.2007 and the first Appellate Court dated 15.12.2008. A suit for recovery was preferred by the plaintiff/respondent for a sum of Rs.4,86,500/- on the basis of a pronote which is alleged to have been executed between the parties. The appellant denied the execution of the pronote and pleaded fraud. The following issues were struck during the course of trial :- 1. Whether defendant executed a pronote and receipt dated 6.6.2001 in favour of the plaintiff?OPP R.S.A. No. 1160 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 2. Whether defendant is entitled to recovery of suit amount along with interest? If so at what rate of interest?OPP 3. Whether pronote and receipt dated 6.6.2001 is a forged and fabricated document?OPD 4. Relief. Both the Courts below concluded that the pronote was validly executed and that the plea of fraud as set up by the appellant was not substantiated. The suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed in the following terms :- “In view of my findings on issues No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs.3,50,000/- succeeds and the same is hereby decreed for the recovery of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs.Three lacs fifty thousand only) with costs and interest @ 1% per month from the date of pronote and receipt i.e. 6.6.2001 till the date of decision and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt of suit till realization on the principal amount....” In the regular second appeal the defendant/appellant has pleaded that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and they have ignored the crucial evidence on record. It is contended that the basic ingredient of passing of consideration at the time of execution of the pronote has not been established and therefore the whole transaction is rendered to be unreliable. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The plaintiff/respondent had pleaded the execution of R.S.A. No. 1160 of 2009 (O&M) -3- pronote between the parties. To establish this plea he examined the scribe and the marginal witnesses Harjit Kaushal and Som Dutt. He also proved the execution of the receipt in lieu of the amount which was received by the appellant. The appellant, who set up the plea of fraud and had pleaded that the documents Exs.P1 and P2 were forged, was cast with a duty to establish the fraud which was set up by him. No such evidence was adduced by him from which it could be inferred that the plea of fraud as raised by him was valid. In this view of the matter, when pure concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts below on the basis of evidence and the findings recorded cannot be termed to be perverse, I am of the opinion that the appeal does not warrant any interference especially when no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of Court. No merit. Dismissed. 30.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss