Regular Second Appeal No.1631 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1631 of 1987 Date of Decision:-28.9.2011 Jagpal Singh ...Appellant Versus Mohinder Kumar Aggarwal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that Mohinder Kumar Aggarwal son of Kishan Chand respondent-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit for a decree of recovery of ` 89540/- (` 66,000/- principal plus ` 23,540/- interest) against Jagpal Singh son of Boondi Ram appellant-defendant (for short “the defendant”), on the basis of pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt dated 12.8.1980 (Ex.P2). 2. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, denying the execution of pronote, receipt and consideration amount, in pursuance thereof. The pronote and receipt were termed to be forged & fabricated documents. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- Regular Second Appeal No.1631 of 1987 -2- 1. Whether the defendant executed a pronote and a receipt in favour of the plaintiff as alleged?OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt were executed without consideration?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate and to what amount?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender and has not obtained money lending licence, if so, its effect?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff did not send six monthly accounts to the defendant, if so, to what effect?OPD 6. Relief. 4. The parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to prove their respective pleaded cases. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of ` 89,540/- with costs alongwith interest at the rate of 1% p.m., by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 31.5.1986. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed with costs as well, except for the modification in regard to the payment of future interest to the extent of 6% per annum, instead of 1% per month, by the Ist Appellate Court, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 15.1.1987. 7. The appellant-defendant still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable asistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 9. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the execution of pronote (Ex.P1), receipt (Ex.P2) and consideration amount is not proved, so, the Regular Second Appeal No.1631 of 1987 -3- Courts below committed a mistake in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, sans merit. 10. As is evident from the record that in order to prove the execution of pronote and receipt, the plaintiff himself appeared as his own witness as PW1 and inter-alia, maintained that the defendant had borrowed the amount of ` 66,000/- and himself executed the pronote and receipt in this regard in his own handwriting and signed the same in token of its correctness, in the presence of Darshan Lal (PW3) and Dilbagh Rai (PW4). Both the attesting witnesses (PW3 & PW4) have, inter-alia, deposed, on oath, that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and executed the pronote & receipt. They have fully supported the case of the plaintiff on all vital counts. Not only that, the plaintiff has also produced PW2 K.S.Puri, Handwriting Expert, who has also duly proved the handwriting/signatures of the defendant on the pronote (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2). Moreover, there is a legal presumption of passing of consideration amount, in pursuance of pronote and receipt. The mere denial of the defendant and his statement as DW5 is not sufficient to rebut the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the plaintiff, as discussed hereinabove, in this relevant connection. 11. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, they have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and the execution of pronote receipt and passing of amount of consideration is duly proved on record. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned Regular Second Appeal No.1631 of 1987 -4- impugned decisions already arrived at, in this regard. 12. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant to assail the findings in the impugned judgments and decrees. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 13. Sequelly, the entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re- appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No