1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1886 of 2009. Date of Decision: 6.5.2009 *** Bhai Amar Singh .. Appellant VS. Mukhtiar Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below the defendant has approached this Court through this regular second appeal and has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the the trial court as well as first appellate court dated 7.12.2007 and 26.2.2009 respectively, by dint of which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery has been decreed for an amount of Rs. 2,58,400/- i.e. principal amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and Rs. 68,400/- towards interest @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of instrument till filing of the suit, as claimed by the plaintiff, along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% and 6% per annum respectively. It is apparent that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery against the defendant-appellant while relying upon the receipts and pronotes dated 22.5.1999 whereby the defendant took a loan of Rs.1,90,000/-, carrying interest @ 2% per month. Although the stand of the defendant was that the above-said pronotes and receipts are forged one, but nothing worth was produced by him to substantiate his said plea. Even no Expert witness was produced by him, rather from the facts it emerges out that there is no specific denial by the defendant that the signatures appearing thereon were not of him. The attempt of the defendant to discard the said pronotes and receipts, by examining its scribe Parkash Singh 2 (DW1), who deposed that no money exchanged hands in his presence, was foiled when, in categoric terms he admitted that the said pronotes and receipts were partly scribed by him, which otherwise were found written by a single person completely and in absence of any explanation as to what prompted him (DW1) to scribe the said pronotes and receipts, thus, leading the Courts below to conclude that the scribe has joined hands with the defendant and his testimony is of no help to the defendant. The pleas of defendant of undervaluation of instrument and suit being barred by limitation were found to have been taken just to wriggle out of his liability to pay the debt, which he failed to return. Further, the suit was rightly found to be within limitation. Therefore, both the courts below on the strength of testimonies of PW.1 Balkaran Singh, the marginal witness coupled with that of plaintiff himself, who in one voice deposed about the execution of said documents by the defendant after taking loan of Rs.1,90,000/-, concurrently held the due execution of pronotes and receipts dated 22.5.1999. Thus, once the instrument was found to be duly executed by defendant, the Court below while drawing presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, held that it was for consideration and that since the defendant-appellant failed to return the loan amount, therefore, he is liable to return the same on the claimed rate of interest w.e.f. execution of instrument till the filing of the suit and thereafter on 12% pendente lite and 6% future interest. The findings arrived at by both the courts below need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 6,2009 Jiten