RSA No.552 of 1987(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.552 of 1987(O&M) Date of decision: 3.3.2010 Prem Singh ............Appellant Versus Raghbir Singh @ Giani .........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. --- ALOK SINGH, J. 1. By invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, respondent/plaintiff/appellant seeks to assail judgment dated 8.10.1986 passed by the learned Appellate Court, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, decreeing the suit of the appellant against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2580/- with interest. 2. Facts culminating into the suit are that on 24.6.1981, Raghbir Singh, defendant borrowed Rs.1750/- from Prem Singh, plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt in lieu thereof with a promise to pay the same alongwith interest at the rate of Rs.2% per mensum. He failed to pay the amount. Thus Prem Singh, filed a suit RSA No.552 of 1987(O&M) 2 for recovery of Rs.2580/- i.e. Rs.1750/- towards principal amount and Rs.830/- towards interest at the rate of 1% per month from 24.6.1981 to 23.6.1984. 3. Defendant strongly resisted the suit on the averments that Gulzara brother of the plaintiff was Travel Agent. He promised to send the defendant to foreign country as he wanted to go abroad. He also obtained his thumb impression on certain documents. Later on Gulzara brother of the plaintiff handed over these documents to his brother Prem Singh, plaintiff who fabricated the pronote and receipt and filed this frivolous suit. He has totally denied the execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff or that he ever borrowed money from the plaintiff. 4. Following issues have been raised by the learned Appellate Court:- “1. Whether the defendant executed the pronote dated 24.6.1981 in favour of the plaintiff for consideration?OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt was a result of fraud mis- representation?OPD. 3. Relief.” 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court. Learned Appellate Court has recorded finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court while hearing the second appeal without any substantial question of law. Learned Counsel for the appellant on being asked stated that finding recorded by the RSA No.552 of 1987(O&M) 3 learned Appellate Court is wrong. As to whether pronote dated 24.6.1981 was executed by defendant is a question of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. I am not inclined to accept the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant. No perversity has been pointed out and no substantial question of law in view of the fact stated herein above arises for consideration of this Court. 7. Hence the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) 3.3.2010 JUDGE ashish