R.S.A.No.1737 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1737 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.5.2011 Sunil Sharma ......Appellant Versus Harpal Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.K.Lamba, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 7.5.2004. Defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of pronote and receipt. It was averred that the pronote and receipt were a result of fraud and fabrication On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of ` 80,343/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the defendant? OPP. R.S.A.No.1737 of 2011 (O&M) 2 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2010 . Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 7.5.2004 executed by the defendant in his favour. As per the said documents, a sum of ` 50,000/- had been advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant as a loan. In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box and examined Jagtar Singh, attesting witness, as PW-2 and Tarlochan Singh, scribe of the pronote and receipt, as PW-3. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution of the pronote and receipt and advancement of the loan amount by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant, on the other hand, failed to rebut the said evidence. The signatures of the defendant on the pronote and receipt were not denied but a plea was taken that his signatures were obtained on some blank papers. The defendant, however, failed to establish the R.S.A.No.1737 of 2011 (O&M) 3 said plea. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt dated 7.5.2004 were duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 30, 2011 anita