IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 670 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : May 05, 2009 Harmail Singh Appellant Versus Gurcharan Singh Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for Mr. A.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 1873-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application delay of 88 days in refiling the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. allowed. C.M. No. 1874-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application delay of 26 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. C.M. allowed. R.S.A. No. 670 of 2009 The trial Court judgment has been examined. The onus was on the part of the plaintiff to prove the execution of the promissory note and receipt as well as passing of the consideration thereunder. On the other hand case of the defendant/appellant (herein referred as the appellant) is that the R.S.A. No. 670 of 2009 2 documents are the result of fraud. The First Appellate Court while holding that the judgment passed by the trial Court was based on misreading of evidence, observed that no consideration did pass and the promissory note and receipt are not proved to have been executed. Neither the plaintiff nor the scribe have been examined. The sole witness to the promissory note examined in Court deposed that on the relevant date two promissory notes one is in favour of Harmail Singh and the other in favour of Gurmail Singh were executed but both of them were not present at that time. No evidence reveals that Harmel Singh was present in India at the time of execution of pronote and receipt or that Harmail Singh was having capacity to pay that much amount to the respondent. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in the case. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 04.05.2009 JUDGE reena