RSA No.871 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.871 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.02.2010 Gurdeep Singh ..Appellant Vs. Gopal Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This appeal by the defendant/appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.09.2009, passed by the learned courts below vide which suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff/respondent stands decreed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees one lac fifteen thousand only), on the pleadings that the defendant/appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.78,000/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand only), from the plaintiff on 2.1.2001, and executed a pronote/receipt in favour of the plaintiff. Out of interest due, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) by way of demand RSA No.871 of 2010 2 draft but failed to return the balance amount. The suit was contested. Besides taking preliminary objection of limitation, the stand taken was that the pronote and receipt were forged documents, that the appellant/defendant never borrowed any sum from the plaintiff/respondent. Other averments made in the plaint were also denied. Learned courts below, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the plaintiff/respondent advanced a loan of Rs,78,000/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand only), against pronote and receipt, and decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.78,000/- (Rupees seventy eight thousand only) with costs. Plaintiff/respondent was also awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of execution of the pronote, till decree of the suit with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till the date of payment. In appeal, findings recorded by the learned trial court were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this court: 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff/respondent who was proved to be a money lender, was liable to be dismissed in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938? 2. Whether in absence of mentioning of object for the loan in the pronote and receipt, could the suit be decreed? RSA No.871 of 2010 3 3. Whether the judgment and decree under challenge is the outcome of misreading of oral and documentary evidence? In support of the substantial questions of law, referred to above, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the plaintiff in cross-examination admitted, that he had not obtained any licence under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (for short the Act) though he had lent money to different people on pronotes, this evidence proved the fact, that the suit was not competent. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in the case of Daljit Kumar and another Vs. Popal Dass AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 211, wherein this court was pleased to lay down, that the suit by money lender for recovery of loan, under a promissory note in absence of certificate of registration is liable to be dismissed, as the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are mandatory. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected, no plea in this regard was raised by the appellant, in the written statement. Rather a positive stand taken was, that the pronote and receipt are forged, and no money was advanced. This stand of the defendant was found to be unsustainable, as the courts below on appreciation of evidence specially in view of the evidence of the Handwriting expert have recorded a concurrent finding that the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant/appellant while receiving a RSA No.871 of 2010 4 friendly loan. The first substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter, argued that the reading of the pronote and receipt show, that no consideration/purpose for advancing the loan, was mentioned, therefore, the, pronote and receipt could not be accepted. This contention is also misconceived. Once passing of consideration, was proved by cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, which stands accepted by the learned courts below, merely because, in the pronote purpose, is not mentioned, cannot be a ground to discard the document. It is now well settled, that when the findings of the learned courts below are based on appreciation of evidence, High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own finding, on re-appreciation of evidence, even if other view is possible. Second substantial question of law, therefore, is also answered against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter contended that the judgment and decree, are without jurisdiction as the appellant/defendant was not residing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff. This contention again is misconceived. Once it was pleaded and proved that the cause of action i.e. advancing of loan had taken place, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the court passing the decree had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. ` Finally, learned counsel for the appellant, drew attention of this court, to the cross-examination of the witnesses, to contend that the RSA No.871 of 2010 5 judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below, is the outcome of misreading of evidence. This contention again is without any merit, as this court cannot reappraise the evidence as already mentioned. The third substantial question of law raised is also answered against the appellant. Concurrent findings of fact recorded, on appreciation of evidence, is not open to challenge in the regular second appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No merit. Dismissed. 24.02.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge