R.S.A. No. 2647 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2647 of 2007 Date of Decision : 04.02.2009 Hari Singh ....Appellant Versus Gurmukh Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Monika Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 23.5.2005 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 7.11.2006. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.33,940/- on the basis of a pronote which was executed by the defendant/appellant on 1.1.2000. The appellant disputed his liability and stated that he was an agricultural labourer working on the farm of Jagdev Singh, a relation of the respondent at the annual salary of Rs.25,000/- and his employer, who had taken his thumb impressions on blank papers abused the same to concoct a pronote and therefore R.S.A. No. 2647 of 2007 -2- the pronote is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. Both the Courts went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether on 01.01.2000, defendant took a loan of Rs.25,000/- and executed a pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so at what rate?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable and competent in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are without consideration?OPD 5. Whether the defendant is an agricultural labourer, if so its effect?OPD 6. Relief. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, ultimately both the Courts concluded that the plea as raised by the appellant has not been substantiated by any evidence on record and that the plaintiff/respondent, on the other hand, had proved the execution of the pronote. It was held that the signatures of the appellant had appeared at five places on the pronote which lent credence to the case of the plaintiff/respondent and was sufficient to bely the case of the appellant. The plaintiff/respondent also examined the scribe and attesting witness of the pronote to prove the execution of the same. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a presumption in favour of the negotiable instrument executed between the parties. This presumption, however, is rebuttable but since the appellant has R.S.A. No. 2647 of 2007 -3- failed to produce any evidence on record to rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the concurrent findings of facts, which have been recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse to warrant any interference in the regular second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, considering the circumstances in totality, the rate of interest as awarded by the Courts below i.e. @ 12% per annum pendente lite is reduced to 6% and the rest does not warrant any interference. 4.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss