RSA No. 3235 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3235 of 2007(O&M) Decided on : 06-02-2009 Harcharan Singh Gill ....Appellant VERSUS Inderjeet Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J C.M.9037-Cof 2007 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 3235 of 2007 This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 22.4.2005 and the First Appellate Court dated 15.1.2007. A suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking an amount of Rs.2,32,200/- from the respondent on the basis of a pronote which has been executed on 26.9.1992. The respondent took up the plea in his written statement that he had certainly taken the loan on the basis of the pronote but the amount had been returned to Pritam Chahal on 28.11.1994. Pritam Chahal is sister of the appellant. He also pleaded that a proper receipt was also executed on 28.11.1994. He admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs. 1,35,000/- from the appellant but denied the condition regarding RSA No. 3235 of 2007 (O&M) 2 interest. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether defendant had paid the entire pronote amount vide receipt dated 28.11.1994 as per preliminary objection No.4?OPD 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree prayed for? OPP. 3. Relief. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant and concluded that the amount had been paid. In appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court were affirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Pritam Chahal had no authority to receive the amount. Therefore, the plea as raised by the respondent is totally false. He further contended that the power of attorney in favour of Pritam Chahal was actually executed on 1.9.2005 whereas loan was taken on 26.9.1992 and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Pritam Chahal was ever authorised to act on his behalf. He further denied that she had to do anything with transactions. Therefore, the plea of the respondent cannot be believed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and also the records. Inderjeet Singh, respondent appeared as DW3. He has categorically admitted that he has taken the loan on the basis of pronote and Pritam Chahal was present at the time when the pronote was executed. A perusal of the pronote also reveals the signatures of Pritam Chahal which lends credence to the version as given by the respondent. Because of the RSA No. 3235 of 2007 (O&M) 3 aforesaid reasons and the categoric admission made by DW3 that Pritam Chahal has given money to the respondent, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is seemingly mis-placed. There is no doubt that presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act leans heavily in favour of the instrument so executed between the parties but at the same time this presumption is rebuttable and after sufficient evidence has been led which on preponderance of the possibility seems acceptable than in such an eventuality the presumption of law shall be deemed to be effectively set off. Having regard to the facts of the case that once the signatures of Pritam Chahal appeared on the pronote, it is the appellant's plea which stands negated, specially when it is coupled with the testimony of DW3. There is no ground to interfere and the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. February 6 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge