RSA No. 2799 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2799 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.7.2009 Gurdev Singh ......Appellant Versus Piara Lala & Others .......Respondents 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: Ms. Gurpal Kaur Dulat, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant-Gurdev Singh is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Piara Lal on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 23.12.2003 in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was decreed. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.9,30,000/-, out of which Rs.7,50,000/- is the principal amount and Rs.1,80,000/- as interest @12% p.a. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff has failed to repay the RSA No. 2799 of 2009 (2) loan amount along with interest, but transferred land owned by him in favour of his sons on 12.12.2003. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount and to avoid the transfer of the land effected by the appellant. The defendants alleged that the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents and are without consideration. It was stated that defendant No.1 and his son Dilbagh Singh, sold their crop through commission agency of Som Parkash son of Chet Ram. Defendant No.1 has obtained loan of Rs.85,000/- on different dates from Som Parkash and Som Parkash, got executed two blank pronote and receipts from defendant No.1 and his son Dilbagh Singh, stood surety. The plaintiff is friend of Som Parkash and they are on visiting terms. Therefore, the blank pronote and receipt obtained by Som Parkash have been used by the plaintiff for the purposes of pronote and receipt. In order to prove that pronote and receipt were executed by defendant No.1, the plaintiff appeared as his own witness as PW2 and examined Dilbagh Singh, attesting witness of the pronote, as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant appeared his own witness as DW2 and produced Ashok Kumar as DW-1. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Court returned a finding that receipt and pronote are proved to be executed and consequently decreed the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of decree. The future interest from the date of decree was granted @ 6% p.a. The said findings were affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court. The learned first Appellate Court held that no sufficient and satisfactory evidence has been led by the defendant in support of the RSA No. 2799 of 2009 (3) allegation that Som Parkash was nursing the grievance against defendant as he has stopped selling crop through him. It also found that Som Parkash has not been examined as a witness. DW1-Ashok Kumar is the Senior Supervisor of the Market committee, who has brought the record of the firm of Piara Lal and Som Parkash. He has deposed that Piara Lal is not a partner of the firm, whose record has been produced by him. In respect of the statement of account Exhibit D.5, it has been held that such document does not disclose borrowing of loan amount by Gurdev Singh nor it bears the signatures of Gurdev Singh or Som Parkash and Exhibit D4 is a pronote attested by Piara Lal, but it was found that the attestation of Piara Lal in the said pronote is not an evidence for lack of consideration of pronote on the basis of which, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Som Parkash was summoned, but he has not produced record of the firm. However, it appears that Som Parkash was called upon the record and he has stated that the record prior to 2004 has been destroyed and he has no dealing with the defendant after 2004. The said statement is not on oath. Thus, it appears that Som Parkash was not summoned as a witness, but for the purposes of production of record and since the record was not available, he has not been examined on oath. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The pronote and receipt Exhibits P.1 and P.2, have been proved to be executed on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff and the attesting witness Dilbagh Singh. The finding of execution of the pronote and receipt is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence. Such finding cannot be said to be suffering from RSA No. 2799 of 2009 (4) any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 29-07-2009 ds