RSA No.4651 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4651 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Jeet Ram .....Appellant v. Hari Chand .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.13537-38-C of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures A1 to A2. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. RSA No.4651 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 3.9.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 12.3.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sirsa, decreeing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of `2,17,000/- inclusive of interest alongwith pendente lite and future interest RSA No.4651 of 2011(O&M) -2- on the ground that present appellant-defendant had borrowed `1,50,000/- from him and agreed to repay the same alongwith interest @ 2% per month on the basis of pronote and receipt executed by him in favour of respondent- plaintiff. The said pronote and receipt are Ex.P1 and Ex.P1/A. On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant denied having received any amount and having executed any pronote and receipt. Rather plea has been taken that he had been dealing with Shri Pritam Singh son of Shri Darshan Lal, who runs commission agent shop under the name and style of Rajindera Commission Agent and that he used to borrow the amount from him from time to time. Further plea has been taken that Panchayat was convened to settle the dispute and in the said Panchayat, Pritam Singh obtained two cheques from him in lieu of `2,37,000/- and that the said amount was returned by him to Pritam Singh in three installments. Further plea has been taken that earlier a suit was filed by one Jagtar against him at the instance of Pritam Singh, which was settled in the Panchayat and thereafter the present suit has been filed by Pritam Singh through present respondent-plaintiff Hari Chand. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court decreed suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. To prove his case, respondent-plaintiff examined scribe of the said pronote and receipt, namely, Dharam Pal, as well as attesting witness of the pronote and receipt, namely, Tara Chand besides his statement and they have duly corroborated statement of respondent-plaintiff on all material points. Both the Courts below believed the depositions of both these RSA No.4651 of 2011(O&M) -3- witnesses. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that there was collusion between Pritam Singh and Hari Chand and that pronote in favour of Hari Chand and pronote in favour of Jagtar, who earlier filed the suit, were allegedly got executed at the same time. It has been further contended that Hari Chand has admitted his relationship with Pritam Singh. However, plea has been rightly discarded by both the Courts below. Pritam Singh is not, in any way, related to Hari Chand and nothing has come on the record as to why Hari Chand would file a false suit against the present appellant-defendant. Deposition of Hari Chand only shows that he is nephew of Pritam Singh in distant relation. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 12.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge