RSA No.1765 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1765 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010. Gurdev Singh .……Appellant Versus Manjit Kaur and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. H. S. Baath, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by defendant-Gurdev Singh, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Suit was filed by Nachhatar Singh (since deceased and represented by respondents herein) against appellant -Gurdev Singh for recovery of Rs.1,32,000/- under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the defendant on 27.03.2004 borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt for the same and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2% per month, but the defendant did not repay any amount. The plaintiff claimed interest for pre-suit period at the rate of 1% per month only amounting to Rs.32,000/-, in addition to the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant inter alia pleaded that he had in fact taken loan of Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff on 14.07.2003 for which defendant's signatures were obtained on blank pronote and receipt. The defendant repaid the said amount with interest to the plaintiff by RSA No.1765 of 2010 -2- depositing the amount in plaintiff's account on 31.12.2003, but the plaintiff told that the pronote and receipt were not traceable and would be returned after tracing the same, but he did not return the same. The defendant denied having taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.03.2004. The defendant also denied the execution of pronote and receipt for the same. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda vide judgment and decree date 17.03.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of pronote and receipt till date of filing of suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant was not and could not be in need of huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet his household expenses because defendant is a senior Government Official having good salary. The contention is defeated by defendant's own plea that earlier he had taken loan of Rs.50000/- from the plaintiff. It was contended on behalf of defendant-appellant that said loan of Rs.50000/- had been taken for getting the defendant's daughter admitted in computer course. If the RSA No.1765 of 2010 -3- defendant being Senior Government Official having handsome salary could not meet the expenses of his daughter's computer course and needed loan for the same, it cannot be said that the defendant could not be in need of loan of Rs.1,00,000/- which he borrowed from the plaintiff on 27.03.2004. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the plaintiff admitted that on 19.03.2004, the plaintiff had transferred Rs.4,90,000/- in defendant's account for purchasing some property,but when the deal did not materialise, the defendant repaid Rs.4,15,000/- by transfering the same to the plaintiff's account and repaid the balance amount in cash to the plaintiff on 26.03.2004 and, therefore, on the very next day i.e 27.03.2004, the defendant would not have taken loan of Rs.1,00,000/- because if the defendant's intentions were dishonest, he could withdraw any amount out of the amount of Rs.4,90,000/- transferred to defendant's account by the plaintiff. The contention is completely devoid of substance. It is not the case of plaintiff that intention of the defendant was dishonest when the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. If it had been so, the plaintiff would not have advanced loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant nor the plaintiff would have transferred the huge amount of Rs.4,90,000/- to defendant's account on 19.03.2004. On the other hand, from the aforesaid transactions, it appears that there were cordial relations between the parties and, therefore, the plaintiff rightly advanced the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant. It may also be added that the defendant allegedly paid Rs.75,000/- in cash to the plaintiff out of the amount of RSA No.1765 of 2010 -4- Rs.4,90,000/-. If the plaintiff were to make dishonest claim of loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, the plaintiff could also make claim of Rs.75,000/- by denying that he had received the said amount in cash. Defendant has admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. It does not appeal to reason that the same were blank when the same were signed by the defendant allegedly at the time of taking loan of Rs.50000/-. If it had been so, the defendant would not have repaid the loan of Rs.50000/- with interest without insisting on return of the blank signed pronote and receipt. The defendant, as per his own version, is a senior Government official. It does not appeal to reason that he signed blank pronote and receipt for the loan of Rs.50000/- and repaid the said amount with interest without taking back the said pronote and receipt. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence and come to concurrent finding against the defendant. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The contentions raised on behalf of the defendant-appellant pertain to appreciation of evidence and do not raise question of law, much less substantial question of law. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 06.05.2010. A. Kaundal