IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 6514-C of 2008 and R.S.A.No.2167 of 2008 Date of Decision:21.10.2008 Puran Singh .....Appellant versus Prem Chand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The present regular second appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.02.2005 passed by the lower appellate Court affirming that of the trial Court dated 7.02.2004 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,25,000/- along with interest, was decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,53,125/- (Rs.2,25,000/- as principal amount and Rs.28,125/- as interest) on the basis of the pronote and receipt dated 7.11.2000. It was pleaded that on 7.11.2000, the defendant took a cash loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the pronote and receipt in token thereof in his favour. It was further pleaded that the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per month. The plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the amount in dispute but he failed to do so. The averments of the plaintiff were controverted by the R.S.A.No.2167 of 2008 -2- defendant by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was doing a business of commission agent under the name and style of M/s Lahori Ram Raj Rishi at Dharamkot and the defendant used to sell his crops at his shop and in that process, the plaintiff got his thumb impressions on some blank papers/pronotes. It was further pleaded that when the defendant stopped to sell his crops at the shop of the plaintiff, he in order to put pressure on him, forged and fabricated the pronote in question. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties held that the defendant took a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the plaintiff and got executed the pronote, Ex.P4, and receipt Ex.P5, in his favour. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 7.2.2004 decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding him entitled to recover Rs.2,25,000/- as principal sum along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt till the date of decision of the suit i.e. 7.2.2004, and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 7.2.2004 till the realization of the decretal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 2.02.2005 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have R.S.A.No.2167 of 2008 -3- perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the Courts below but failed to show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of the evidence available on record which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The Courts below had concurrently held that the defendant executed the pronote, Ex.P4, and receipt, Ex.P5, in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- as loan and did not repay the same. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not call for any interference, particularly when it was not the case of the defendant that the pronote and receipt do not bear his signatures. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal is belated by 1052 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the application, no ground for condonation of colossal delay of 1052 days has been made out. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. October 21, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE