RSA No.2835 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2835 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.8.2009 Rajinder Kumar Gupta ......Appellant Versus Prem Chand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.1,72,000/-, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 10.7.2003, was decreed. The plaintiff relies upon pronote and receipt dated 10.7.2003 in the sum of Rs.1 lac, in support of the amount advanced to the defendant. The said amount was repayable along with interest @ 2% p.m. Since the defendant failed to pay the amount of pronote along with interest, therefore, the present suit for recovery was filed. RSA No.2835 of 2009 (2) The plaintiff examined Jagdish Rai PW1 attesting witness of pronote and receipt Exhibits P.1 and P.2 in his evidence besides appearing himself as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the pronote and receipt are forged and result of misrepresentation. The plaintiff appeared in his evidence as PW1. No circumstances in support of the plea of fraud or misrepresentation were given by the defendants. Both the Courts have found that the pronote and receipt Exhibits P.1 and P.2 stand executed on 10.7.2003 and such pronote was executed on receipt of Rs.1 lac by the defendant-appellant. The learned trial Court has granted interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of pronote till the date of realisation but in appeal by the defendant and on cross-objections filed by the plaintiff, the rate of interest has been modified to that of 12% p.a. from the date of pronote till the date of decree and 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realisation. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Courts below in respect of the execution of the pronote and receipt is not sustainable. The evidence led by the plaintiff is not reliable and creditworthy, on the basis which the finding recorded can be said to be sustainable. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the argument raised. Both the Courts have believed the testimony of the attesting witness and the plaintiff, to return a finding that the pronote and receipt stand executed. The plea of the defendant that the pronote and receipt are the result of fraud or misrepresentation, remained unsubstantiated. Therefore, it is a pure finding of fact, which is sought to be disputed by re-appreciation of evidence. RSA No.2835 of 2009 (3) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-08-2009 ds