R.S.A NO.4710 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO.4710 OF 2009 (O & M) DECIDED ON : 24.08.2010 Jagsir Singh ...Appellant versus Smt.Lakhesari Devi ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. Kulbhushan Soi, Advocate, for the appellant. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is regular second appeal directed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment dated 09.05.2009 passed by Shri J. S. Bhinder, Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, was dismissed. Ramesh Kumar-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,58,000/- on the allegations that defendant Jagsir Singh borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 21.07.2000 to meet out the domestic needs and agreed to pay the amount on demand along with intrest @ 2% per month. The defendant R.S.A NO.4710 OF 2009 -2- executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. The defendant failed to return the amount. A notice dated 17.05.2003 was also served upon the defendant to pay the amount but the amount has not been paid. Hence, the suit. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts; defendant has not executed any pronote and receipt nor borrowed Rs.1,50,000/-. The plaintiff has given his land on lease to the defendant and for the sake of surety, the plaintiff obtained signatures of the defendant on the blank stamp papers. Replication was filed wherein all the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues : 1) Whether on 21.07.2000 defendant borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a pronote and receipt in his favour ? OPP 2) Whether suit is within limitation ? OPP 3) Whether plaintiff concealed any material fact from the Court ? OPD 4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest over the principal amount, if so, at what rate ? OPP R.S.A NO.4710 OF 2009 -3- 5) Relief. Plaintiff examined Mangat Ram as PW-1 and himself appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents. On the other hand, defendant examined Krishan Lal as DW-1, Neelam Midha as DW-2, Prma Nand as DW-3, Parveen Kumar as DW-4, Vijay Kumar Goel as DW-5, Vinod Kumar as DW-6, Joginder Pal as DW-7 and himself stepped into the witness box as DW-8 and closed the evidence. The learned trial Court has taken up Issues No.1 and 3 together and returned the findings on these issues in favour of the plaintiff. Issues No.2 and 4 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 21.07.2000 till decree and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment dated 04.04.2007, the defendant preferred first appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 09.05.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. Feeling dissatisfied with both the judgments dated 09.05.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Abohar, the defendant has preferred the present appeal. R.S.A NO.4710 OF 2009 -4- The appellant in para no.8 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal : a) Whether the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are illegal, arbitrary, against the principle of natural justice and liable to be set aside ? b) Whether the respondent concealed the material fact, despite of this he is entitled to be decreed the suit in his favour ? c) Whether the appellant is liable to pay the decreed amount when the appellant has not borrowed any amount from the respondent ? d) Whether the respondent is entitled interest on the alleged borrowed amount by the appellant, whereas no interest is mentioned in the pronote ? However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the Courts below have committed error by drawing wrong conclusion on the evidence available on the file. The defendant never borrowed any money from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote or receipt. So, prayer has been made for acceptance of the appeal. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records of the case. R.S.A NO.4710 OF 2009 -5- The main controversy in the present appeal is whether the plaintiff has been able to prove the execution of pronote and receipt and passing of the consideration through pronote and receipt ? There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both Courts below after appraisal and re-appraisal of the evidence, that plaintiff has been able to prove the execution of pronote and receipt and passing of consideration. So that being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. Otherwise also, once the execution of pronote and receipt is proved, the onus shifts upon the defendant that negotiable instrument is without consideration. The defendant has failed to prove that pronote and receipt are without consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out how the trial Court has misread and misinterpreted the evidence on file. So, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present case. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. AUGUST 24, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE