REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3920 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.3920 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 7, 2011 Chanan Singh .... Appellant Versus Baldev Singh .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Chanan Singh-defendant having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Baldev Singh filed suit against defendant- appellant for recovery of Rs.3,12,500/- alleging that the defendant on 13.05.2003 borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 3% per month. The plaintiff, however, claimed interest @ 1% per month only in the suit. The defendant failed to pay the loan and interest inspite of repeated demands. The plaintiff, therefore, sought recovery of Rs.3,12,500/- which includes principal amount and interest. The defendant controverted the plaint allegations. He alleged that he used to sell his agricultural produce at the shops of plaintiff Baldev Singh and used to receive price thereof. The plaintiff obtained thumb impressions of defendant on some blank paper during the said period. In June 2004, REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3920 OF 2009 -2- defendant demanded some advance money from the plaintiff, who declined to pay the same. Impugned pronote-cum-receipt is a false document. There is also another pronote-cum-receipt in favour of Puran Singh who is also witness of pronote-cum-receipt of the instant case. Puran Singh has also filed separate case on the basis of said pronote-cum-receipt. The defendant did not thumb marked entries in the register of Deed Writer relating to these pronotes. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2008 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 18.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff not only himself appeared in the witness box but has also examined a marginal witness of the impugned pronote-cum-receipt and also the Deed Writer who scribed the same, who supported the plaintiff's version. On the other hand, defendant has himself stepped into the witness box as DW-3 and examined two other witnesses in support of his version. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence, have recorded concurrent finding in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to call interference in the instant second appeal. Pronote-cum-receipt in question has been duly proved by the plaintiff to have been executed by the defendant. There is presumption of consideration for the pronote in view of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3920 OF 2009 -3- defendant-appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant- defendant had been selling his produce at the shops of the plaintiff-respondent. However, merely on this ground, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited. On the contrary, farmers usually take loans from the commission agents at whose shops they sell their agricultural produce. It is very common and usual phenomenon. Even defendant-appellant has pleaded that he wanted to borrow some advance money from the plaintiff who refused to pay the same. The defendant in the written statement admitted his thumb impressions on pronote- cum-receipt in question by pleading that plaintiff had obtained thumb impressions of the defendant on some blank paper when defendant used to sell his agricultural produce at the shops of the plaintiff. If the defendant had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff, there was no occasion for the defendant to have affixed his thumb impressions on blank pronote-cum- receipt. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 07.01.2011 'raj'