RSA No.3180 of 1984 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3180 of 1984 Decided on : 25-08 2010 Gahar Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Karwar Singh (since dead) through his L.Rs ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Sanjay Mittal , Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment of the Appellate Court dated 21.8.1984. A suit for recovery was initiated by the respondent who averred in his pleadings that a pronote had been executed by the appellant for a total sum of Rs.6900/-. Suit was for recovery of Rs.8686/- which included interest. The appellant denied the execution of the pronote and also averred that the pronote was forged and fabricated and was procured by mis-representation and fraud. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the pronote and receipt were executed by the defendant? If so to what effect? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved whether the pronote and receipt are without consideration? OPD. 3. Whether the defendant is a marginal farmer and his income from all sources is not Rs.1000/- OPD 4. Whether the pronote and receipt are properly stamped? OPD RSA No.3180 of 1984 2 5. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender, if so to what effect? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of any interest, if so, how much and at what rate? OPP. 7. Relief. The Trial Court dismissed the suit while in appeal the findings were reversed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant in the instant appeal has contended that execution of the pronote was not established from the record. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that pure question of fact has been determined where execution of the pronote for consideration stood established. The appellant pleaded fraud and mis- representation but could not produce sufficient evidence from where such a plea could be established. Positive proof in support of the case of the present respondent was the receipt Ex.P-2 which was also executed by the appellant. In this view of the matter when pure question of the fact has been determined, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Court below, specially when no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. Hence, dismissed. August 25, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge