R.S.A.No.3181 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3181 of 2008 Date of Decision:15.10.2008 Mewa Singh .....Appellant versus Naurang Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The present regular second appeal filed by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2008 passed by the lower appellate Court affirming that of the trial Court dated 05.10.2007 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest and costs, was decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant raised a total loan of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.75,000/- on 29.6.2000, Rs.50,000/- on 10.7.2000 and Rs.25,000/- on 12.7.2000) on interest @ 2.5% per month from the plaintiff for the business of sale purchase of goods and executed two promissory notes and receipts of Rs.75,000/- each in token thereof on 21.09.2000 in the presence of the witnesses. It was further pleaded that when the plaintiff demanded the amount back, a cheque bearing No. 179664 was issued by the defendant in his favour. But on 20.02.2001, the defendant requested him not to present the cheque in the bank and gave a writing R.S.A.No.3181 of 2008 2 authorizing him to collect a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- from Mr.Kang, at Chandigarh. According to the plaintiff, he along with the said letter approached Mr.Kang for the payment of the aforesaid amount but he refused to pay the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff presented the said cheque in the bank but the same was dishonoured and returned with the remarks of “Insufficient Funds”. The plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant which also failed to evoke any positive result and that gave rise to the filing of the suit for recovery of Rs.1,75,000/- along with the interest accrued thereon. Upon notice, the defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that he never executed the promissory note and the signatures thereon were forged and fabricated. However, in view of the pendency of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the defendant reserved his rights to disclose the defence at the appropriate stage and prayed for dismissal of the suit. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery as prayed for?OPP 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3) Relief”. The trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties while deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff held that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and that he was entitled to recover the said amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of pronotes and receipts till the date of decree and further R.S.A.No.3181 of 2008 3 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till its realization. Accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than that of the Courts below but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below suffer from any mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. Both the Courts below had concurrently held that execution of the pronotes Exhibits P1 and P3 and the receipts Exhibits P2 and P4 and passing on of the consideration had been duly proved by the plaintiff by examining the attesting witness of the pronotes and receipts whereas except the oral statement of the defendant, no other evidence was produced by him to show that the aforesaid pronotes and receipts were not executed. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. October 15, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE