Regular Second Appeal No. 3708 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 3708 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.11.2008 Balwinder Singh and Another …Appellants Versus Sarwan Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The two Courts below appreciated the evidence and held that the appellants are unable to pay the amount taken as loan by Sarwan Singh son of Dhanna Singh along with interest. Findings of the two Courts below have been assailed in the present regular second appeal. A suit was filed by plaintiff Sarwan Singh son of Kishan Singh wherein it was stated that Sarwan Singh son of Dhanna Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 22.10.2002 for the purchase of land and the rate of interest was fixed at 3% per month on demand. A pronote and a receipt in favour of the plaintiff was also executed. Since various demands raised by the plaintiff failed to convince the defendant to return the amount, therefore, the suit was filed after the death of Sarwan Singh son of Dhanna Singh against his first class legal heirs. Regular Second Appeal No. 3708 of 2008 2 Notice of the suit was issued. Defendants had caused their appearance. In their written statement they denied that any amount was advanced by the plaintiff. They further denied that any pronote or receipt was executed by Sarwan Singh son of Dhanna Singh. It was further stated that suit is barred by limitation and there is no locus standi on the pat of the plaintiff to file the suit. Replication to the written statement was filed in which averments made in the suit were reiterated. Thereafter, learned trial Court formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the predecessor in interest on the defendants namely Sarwan Singh has executed the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff and received the amount? OPP 2. Whether the pronote and receipt are validly executed document? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount, alongwith interest? OPP 4. Relief. In order to substantiate his claim, plaintiff himself appeared as PW.1 and examined Kishan Chand as PW.2 and Krishan Kant as PW.3 From the side of defendants, only Balwinder Singh appeared as DW.1 The pronote and the receipt was attested by Baljit Singh and Kishan Chand. Kishan Chand appeared as PW.2. Krishan Kant PW.3 is scribe of the pronote and the receipt. Defendants in their written statement had denied the Regular Second Appeal No. 3708 of 2008 3 execution of the above said documents and have stated that no amount was borrowed by their father. In the Court, a new plea was set up which was beyond the pleadings that vide Ex.D2, another pronote Ex.D1 was scribed and on the back of that pronote it was written that the amount has been paid, because of this, pronote Ex.D1 was returned. The two Courts below have held that this was not pleaded in the written statement and furthermore no effort has been made to prove Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, which are based on appreciation of evidence, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to formulate any substantial question of law which should detain attention of this Court. Therefore, this Court cannot come to rescue of the appellants. The prayer of the appellants that this Court should re- appreciate and do re-appraisal of the evidence cannot be accepted in the regular second appeal. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 18, 2008 “DK”