R.S.A. No. 2780 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2780 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:- 22.11.2011 Bikkar Singh ...Appellant Versus Bharat Bhushan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) Challenge is to the judgment dated 28.10.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bhatinda whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda has been dismissed. R.S.A. No. 2780 of 2010 -2- Brief facts of the case are that on 3.6.2004 the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash from the plaintiff at Sangat Mandi on interest @ 2% per month for domestic use. The defendant executed the pronote and receipt and put his thumb impression on the pronote. A registered notice dated 25.4.2005 was sent to the defendant to return the loan. The suit was filed on 2.6.2005 under Order XXXVII for recovery of Rs.62,000/-. On notice, the defendant appeared and furnished surety bond to the extent of suit. He was granted to leave to defend the suit. The surety bonds were furnished on 11.5.2007. In the written statement, the defendants took the stand that the suit of the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1(j) of CPC is liable to be dismissed. The defendant denied that he took any loan from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote or receipt. On 11.8.2007 the trial Court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 3.6.2004? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal amount, if so at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Relief.” R.S.A. No. 2780 of 2010 -3- The trial Court after hearing both the parties, returned the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff was held entitled to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the defendant. The plaintiff had produced the attesting witnesss i.e. PW1 Pawan Kumar and PW2 Deepak Kumar, who was the scribe of the pronote and receipt. PW3-plaintiff himself appeared and stated that the pronote and receipt Ex.P1 and P2 were scribed by Deepak Kumar after receipt of the loan, were duly exhibited by the trial Court. The defendant had taken the plea that they had also taken loan from the father of the plaintiff, which was returned in the year 2002. On appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed. The onus to prove issues Nos.3 and 4 w2as on the defendant but no evidence was led by the defendant and hence the findings were returned against the defendant. On appeal,the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed. Pawan Kumar-PW1 who is the marginal witness of the pronote stated that on an earlier occasion two other pronotes Ex.D1 and D2 were issued to the defendant. He was an attesting witness of both the pronotes. Mr. Vikas Singh, counsel for the appellant has argued that no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that he had any license under the Punjab Registration of Money-lenders Act, 1938 and hence he had no locus standi to file the suit for R.S.A. No. 2780 of 2010 -4- recovery of Rs.62000/- under Order 37 CPC. This argument was not advanced by counsel for the appellant at the time of framing of issues. After framing of issues by the trial Court on 11.8.2007 the defendant had ample opportunity to lead his evidence on issue Nos.3 and 4 but no evidence was led and hence the findings on issue Nos.3 and 4 were returned against them. Even after framing of issues no attempt was made by the appellant to get issue framed that the plaintiff did not have any money-lender license to recover the amount. The appellant had deposited Rs.50,000/- as surety under the order of this Court, the respondent is at liberty to withdraw this amount. This appeal cannot be entertained at this stage of regular second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court. The regular second appeal is dismissed. November 22, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE