R.S.A. No. 310 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 310 of 2008 Date of Decision : 23.3.2009 Ujjagar Singh .......... Appellant Versus Gurmeet Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. A.K. Garg, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 3.11.2006 and 30.7.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent for recovery of Rs. 5,49,547/- on the basis of pronote and receipt stands decreed. The plaintiff brought a suit on the pleading that on 12.6.2001 the defendant / appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the plaintiff on interest @ 2% per month. The loan was advanced against a pronote and receipt executed by the defendant / appellant in presence of two attesting witnesses. In order to prove the execution of the pronote and advancement of loan, the plaintiff examined himself as one of the witnesses and also the other two attesting witnesses. On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed by the R.S.A. No. 310 of 2008 2 learned trial Court was “Whether the pronote and receipt is not admissible in evidence ?” The onus of issue was on the defendant / appellant. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, in spite of availing number of opportunities the defendant / appellant failed to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. In view of the evidence on record, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant / appellant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- along with interest and thus decreed the suit with future interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization. Though the learned trial Court had granted interest @ 2% per month on the loan amount but the learned lower appellate Court reduced it to 1% per month. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are based on inadmissible evidence and thus perverse ? In support of the substantial question of law the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that it was proved on record, that one of the attesting witnesses examined by the plaintiff/ respondent was his maternal uncle, thus, interested witness, therefore, his evidence could not be relied. If said evidence is taken out of preview then the execution of pronote and receipt, cannot be said to have been proved, as these documents were R.S.A. No. 310 of 2008 3 exhibited in the statement of the attesting witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that his evidence was closed on 2.11.2006 and the case was decided on the very next day which was not permissible. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely because the attesting witness was maternal uncle of the plaintiff cannot be a ground to reject his statement as contended. The authenticity of the statement of the attesting witnesses which was consistent and inspired confidence was rightly believed by the learned Courts below. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is totally misconceived as after the evidence of the parties was closed the learned Court was required to hear and decide the matter on merit. The decision cannot be challenged on ground of early disposal. The substantial question of law framed is answered against the appellant and, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed in limine. 23.3.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE