IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4322 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.07.2011 Jagraj Singh … Appellant Versus Balvir Singh …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.Puri, J. This appeal directed by defendant-appellant is against the judgment and decree dated 8.4.2010 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Talwandi Sabo was dismissed. Briefly stated that Balvir Singh filed a suit under order XXXVII CPC for recovery of Rs.60,200/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 17.4.2004. It is pleaded that defendant now appellant had executed a pronote dated 17.4.2004 after receiving the consideration of Rs.35,000/-. The defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per annum which is calculated as Rs.25,200/-. In this manner, suit for recovery of Rs.60,200/- which is due against the defendant, was filed. The defendant refused to pay the said amount. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who appeared and filed application seeking relief to defend the suit. The plaintiff made a statement that if defendant furnishes the surety, the suit may be treated as an ordinary. The defendant furnished the surety and, thereafter, RSA No.4322 of 2010 (O&M) filed a written statement raising legal objections regarding maintainability, locus standi and cause of action. It is pleaded that pronote and receipt are false, forged and fabricated document and are prepared in connivance with the scribe and witnesses. Factum of receipt and pronote was denied. No replication was filed and the following issues were framed :- “1. Whether the defendant obtained Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff as loan on 17.4.2004 and executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.35,000/- from the defendant, along with interest, if so, at what rate? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 6. Relief.” In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined PW-1 Sukhdev Singh son of Gurbax Singh and he himself appeared as PW2 and closed his evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant appeared as DW1. Learned trial court after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, whereas Issue Nos.3 to 5 were decided against the defendant, being not pressed. In view of Issue Nos.1 to 5, the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.35,000/- with costs was decreed along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of advance of loan till the date of decree and further future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal amount from the decree till realization, was passed. 2 RSA No.4322 of 2010 (O&M) Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, the defendant preferred first appeal before the District Judge, Bathinda. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.2010 passed by the District Judge, Bathinda. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8.4.2010 passed by District Judge, Bathinda and judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Talwandi Sabo, the defendant- appellant has preferred the present appeal. The appellant, in para No.9 of the grounds of appeal, has mentioned that the following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal:- “1. Whether the pronote and receipt are genuine document? 2. Whether the trial court had not framed issues properly? 3. Whether the Courts below have misread and mis- interpreted the evidence led by the appellant? During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court has misread and mis-interpreted the evidence on the file. Pronote and receipt are not proved in accordance with law. The said pronote and receipt are forged documents. The trial Court had not framed proper issues. The issue that pronote and receipt are forged documents has not been framed. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the file of this case. The pronote and receipt have been singed by the plaintiff as well as marginal witnesses of the pronote. Both of the witnesses have also proved the factum of passing the consideration through the pronote and 3 RSA No.4322 of 2010 (O&M) receipt. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to make out whether the trial Court has misread and mis-interpreted the evidence on the file. The trial Court has framed the issue regarding execution of the pronote and receipt and onus to prove was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has discharged the onus by examining himself besides Sukhdev Singh as a witness. The mere denial by defendant is not sufficient. There is a presumption of passing the consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and execution of the pronote and receipt is proved. No reasoning has been given by the appellant why the plaintiff has filed a false case against him. So I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present case and the law points referred in para No.9 of the grounds of appeal do not exist. There is a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below that the plaintiff had proved the execution of the pronote and receipt and passing of consideration. A finding of fact cannot be agitated in the Regular Second Appeal in view of Section 100 CPC. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed in limine. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C. Puri) Judge 03.06.2011 sd 4