Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.1.2009 *** Charan Singh. Appellant VS. Mohan Lal Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Harbhajan Singh Sran, Advocate. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The respondent-plaintiff got instituted a suit for recovery against the appellant-defendant with the averments that the latter took the loan of Rs.2,30,000/- from him on 18.2.1999 vide cheque bearing No. 990252 dated 18.2.1999 for a period of two months and agreed to return the same along with interest @ 1.5% per month, but did not return the same. Hence, recovery of Rs.3,15,000/- including principal amount and interest accrued thereupon was sought. On the other hand the case of the defendant was of denial of taking of any loan from the plaintiff. After the contest the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and he was held entitled for recovery of Rs.2,30,000/- along with 1% interest per month from taking of loan till the decision of the suit. Future interest @ 6% was also awarded to the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by the first appellate court below, upholding the findings of the learned trial court, hence this regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant questioning the legality of the impugned judgments. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused Regular Second Appeal No. 535 of 2009 2 the paper book carefully. The issuance of cheque in question and its encashment has been duly proved by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the defendant has not disputed this fact. The plea of the defendant-appellant that the said cheque was given by the plaintiff on 18.2.1999 towards the advance payment of Combine Harvestor, purchased by Ujagar Singh and Natha Singh for an amount of Rs.7,66,500/- from the firm in which the defendant was one of the partner and the self serving oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the defendant, were not found genuine since while issuing the bill dated 12.3.1999 of Combine Harvestor, there was no mention/ deduction of the cheque amount therein. Even the said cheque was not found issued in the name of the firm, but in the name of defendant personally. Moreover, the alleged purchaser Ujagar Singh and Natha Singh were also not produced before the Court by the defendant to substantiate his said plea. Thus, taking into account these facts, both the Courts below rightly held that the cheque amount was paid to the defendant towards loan by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled for return of the same along with interest, as referred to above. Nothing has been shown to deviate from what has been concurrently held by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below suffer from any illegality or perversity or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this regular second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 30,2009 Jiten