1 RSA No. 1543 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Regular Second Appeal No. 1543 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.5.2009 Gurjant Singh --- Appellant Versus Mewa Singh --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL -- PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Appellant, Gurjant Singh herein is none else but the real brother of the plaintiff, Mewa Singh. A suit for recovery of Rs. 81740/- was filed by Mewa Singh, plaintiff-respondent against the appellant pleading, inter alia, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 56,000/- from him; he promised to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 2% per month and he executed a pronote and receipt on the same day by putting his signatures thereon in the presence of the marginal witnesses. The defendant paid back a sum of Rs. 9,000/- to the plaintiff on 6.11.2000 which was adjusted towards the principal amount, but he failed to repay the balance amount despite demand, which necessitated the filing of the suit. The defendant in his written statement took a plea that there was dispute between him and the plaintiff over the payment of the 2 RSA No. 1543 of 2009 outstanding debit balance standing in the account with M/s. Sukhpal Singh Brar, Commission Agents, Bhagu. The dispute was got settled by the mediation of respectables and in terms thereof, the defendant had to execute the pronote and the receipt in question in favour of the plaintiff as a measure of security for repayment of the outstanding amount to the said firm. It was pleaded that the pronote and receipt in question were without consideration and the same were returnable to the defendant after the dues of the said firm were cleared and on the basis of this, it was further asserted that the plaintiff had no legal right to recover the amount in question from the defendant. Though the defendant had already made full payment to the above firm, but despite that the plaintiff had not returned the pronote and receipt and by misusing the same, filed the instant suit. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence on record returned a firm finding that the plaintiff had proved on record the execution of the pronote and receipt, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 , and also that a sum of Rs. 47,000/- was outstanding against the defendant, which the plaintiff was entitled to recover from him. The trial court further held that keeping in view the nature of transaction as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of transaction till filing of the suit and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till realisation. The trial court, thus, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.4.2008. The first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed defendant’s appeal vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2009. 3 RSA No. 1543 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the record with his assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the findings of the courts below are wrong and illegal and this Court should record an independent finding on re-appreciation of the evidence. The contention raised by the counsel cannot be entertained in view of the impediment contained in the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The counsel could not show any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Nor could he formulate or, otherwise, point out any substantial question of law for the consideration of this Court. A reading of the impugned judgments shows that there was no dispute about the execution of the pronote and receipt and the sole dispute was with regard to the fact, whether any consideration was passed on in pursuance thereto or not. The plaintiff has successfully been able to unveil the curtain on the pleas raised by the defendant which on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence led on record proved to be false. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) May 07, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*