R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.07.2009 Karnail Singh ....Appellant Versus Kundan Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 6831-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed, the order dated 5.5.2009 dismissing the appeal in default, is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No. 2224 of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008 passed by the learned Courts below, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent, brought a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt, executed by the petitioner, showing that the principal amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) was advanced at the interest rate of 2% per month. R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M) -2- The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant, on the plea that the defendant/appellant had received no amount nor executed any pronote. It was also specifically pleaded, that no transaction took place in the presence of the witnesses. The pronote was said to be forged and fabricated document. The case set up was, that he had taken land of his maternal grandfather on lease, and the plaintiff being clever and intelligent person, got signatures of the defendant/appellant on the blank papers, for the purpose of security, and told him that when he will deliver back the possession of the land, the pronote would be returned. The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff were legal and valid documents. The learned Courts below also held, that the plaintiff/respondent was entitled to recover sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of transaction, future interest @ 6% per annum was also granted. The plea of the plaintiff, that it was forged and fabricated document, was not accepted. Consequently, the suit decreed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: “Whether the learned Courts below were justified in rejecting the plea raised by the appellant without discussing the same?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the reading of the judgment would show, that though the plea was noted, but no reasons have been given for rejecting it. The judgment and decree, therefore, is liable to be R.S.A. No. 2224 of 2008 (O&M) -3- set aside, by answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that the learned Courts below have not taken note of the stand taken by the defendant/appellant. The learned Courts below have duly recorded the stand taken by the defendant/appellant and a concurrent finding has been recorded to hold, that the pronote and receipt were legal and valid documents, which were duly executed by the defendant/appellant. Once the version of the plaintiff/respondent was accepted, it shows that the stand of the defendant/appellant was rejected and suit decreed. The substantial question of law raised, therefore, does not arise for consideration in this appeal, or in any case deserves to be answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 24, 2009 R.S.