RSA No.2994 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2994 of 2009 Date of decision August 12, 2009 Manjit Singh .....APPELLANT VERSUS Major Singh .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Ms Seema Arora, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit filed by the respondent was decreed for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- with costs against the appellant. The respondent was also held entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of transaction i.e. 6.3.2001 till the passing of the decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. The judgment and decree dated 19.8.2005 passed by the learned trial Court was upheld in appeal by learned lower appellate Court on 9.8.2006. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant is before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff, the defendant obtained a loan of Rs.70,000/- from him and in lieu thereof, executed a pronote in his favour. The defendant agreed to return the loan alongwith interest @ 2% per month. Despite the same, the defendant did not pay anything towards principal and interest. Hence, the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,07,800/- i.e. Rs.70,000/- as principal amount and Rs.37,800/- as interest @ 2% per month. RSA No.2994 of 2009 -2- The defendant denied taking of any amount from the plaintiff or executing any pronote in his favour. He was having a commission agency with Roshan Lal Narang who had obtained his signatures on a blank pronote as security with promise to return it when he was to leave the agency. After settling the account, the defendant left the agency but Roshan Lal Narang kept a grudge in his mind and got instituted the suit through the plaintiff with whom he started another agency. The blank pronote containing his signatures was misused by the plaintiff. The execution of the pronote and receipt stands proved from the testimonies of PW1 Roshan Lal and PW2 Major Singh, the plaintiff himself. Roshan Lal deposed that on 6.3.2001 pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 were scribed by a deed writer on the asking of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. After scribing the pronote and the receipt, the Deed Writer read over the same to the plaintiff and the defendant after admitting the same to be correct and receiving Rs.70,000/- in cash from the plaintiff, signed the same. Thereafter, Roshan Lal signed the documents by way of attestation. The defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and the receipt. He failed to prove that his signatures were obtained on blank pronote and receipt. His signatures also appeared in the register of the Deed Writer. He did not file any complaint or move the authorities against the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff had sought interest @ 2% per month on the principal amount but learned lower Courts awarded interest @ 1% per month (12% per annum) from the date of the pronote till the date of the decree and future interest @ 6% per annum. RSA No.2994 of 2009 -3- A perusal of the impugned judgements would reveal that the evidence led by the parties was properly appreciated by the learned Courts below. All the issues, which arose in the suit, were decided in the light of the evidence available on the record. The findings arrived at by the learned Courts below are neither perverse nor suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The concurrent findings of facts cannot be disturbed in a second appeal which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. No question of law, much less any of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the defendant/appellant, arises for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, in limine. (T.P.S.MANN) August 12, 2009 JUDGE Pds