RSA No.355 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 355 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2011. Chhota Singh. ...... APPELLANT Versus Paramji Singh. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.981-C of 2011. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.982-C of 2011. Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 114 days in re-filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. RSA No.355 of 2011. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Patiala vide which appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against RSA No.355 of 2011(O&M) -2- judgment and decree dated 23.07.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for recovery, was decreed, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,37,440/- on the plea that on 5.6.2002, appellant-defendant had taken a cash loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from him and he executed pronote and receipt in favour of respondent-plaintiff in the presence of witnesses in this regard and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 1.56 per cent per month. Further plea has been taken that after one year of the execution of the pronote and receipt, Rs.40,000/- plus interest for one year, was returned by present appellant-defendant to him and he accordingly issued receipt to him and however, the appellant-defendant refused to repay the remaining amount. On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant denied having taken Rs.1,40,000/- and contended that he did not execute any pronote and receipt in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Rather, plea has been taken that the same are forged and fabricated documents. Plea has also been taken that respondent-plaintiff had been running the business of commission agent in New Grain Market, Nabha and he used to advance loans and as a security, he used to get executed pronote and receipt in his favour. It is further contended that respondent-plaintiff obtained his signatures on pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 without making payment of any amount as the same have been executed for fixing the loan limit for him. RSA No.355 of 2011(O&M) -3- On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal filed by present appellant- defendant was dismissed by the first appellate Court. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that both the Courts below have committed illegality as the respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove payment of the consideration for execution of pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 and, that even the source of income of respondent-plaintiff has also not been shown. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant. Respondent-plaintiff has examined scribe of documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 as well as witness of pronote namely Balwinder Singh besides statement of respondent-plaintiff, whereas there is only self-serving statement of present appellant-defendant. It has been specifically deposed by PW2 Balwinder Singh that pronote and receipt have been executed after receiving consideration by the present appellant- defendant. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 12, 2011 JUDGE Sachin M.