RSA No.288 of 2009 (O & M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.288 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision: 10.03.2010 Surinder Kumar and another .. Defendant/Appellants Versus Kewal Singh .. Plaintiff-Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Vikas Bali, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for the respondent AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) . . . This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of Rs.2 Lacs + interest. Both the Courts below on consideration of the entire evidence have held that the respondent was able to prove the execution of the slip (Ex.P-1) whereby the appellants had acknowledged the loan. The Courts below have also noticed the plea of the appellants that in fact a signed blank paper was stolen by the respondent and have further found that the allegation of theft was not proved by the appellants. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The following question has been proposed:- (i) Whether the onus of proof to establish his own case is on the plaintiff ? In my opinion, having examined himself and one of the RSA No.288 of 2009 (O & M) :2: witnesses, the respondent had initially discharged the onus cast upon him. Admittedly, the appellants never even appeared in witness-box nor they were able to prove their allegation that the said paper was stolen from the shop. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay and Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, are dismissed. March 10, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE