IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CMs 797-C and 799-C of 2008 and RSA 245 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.1.2008 Charanjit Singh …Appellant Versus Nihal Singh …Respondent Present: Ms Gurpal Kaur Dulat, Advocate for the appellant. S.S. SARON, J (oral). CM 797-C of 2008 Submits that deficiency in payment of Court fee has been made good. In the circumstances, the delay, if any, in payment of the Court fee is condoned. The CM stands disposed of. CM 799-C of 2008 For the reasons stated in the CM which is supported by the affidavit of the appellant, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The CM stands allowed. RSA 245 of 2008 The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs 46,670/- i.e. Rs 35,000/- as principal amount and Rs 11,670/- as interest. It was alleged that on 15.11.2001, the defendant-appellant took a cash loan of Rs CM 799-C of 2008 and RSA 245 of 2008 35,000/- and he got scribed a pronote and receipt from Hardial Singh – Deed Writer, Barnala in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and denied all the allegations. It was stated that he had given 7 acres of land to Budh Singh son of Ginder Singh who is the brother-in-law (Sala) of the plaintiff. The land was given for sowing vegetables. The plaintiff and Budh Singh aforesaid had come to the defendant-appellant and stated that without the help of a tractor, it was difficult to do cultivation. They asked the defendant to mortgage his land with a Bank so that they could obtain a loan. Nihal Singh – plaintiff and Budh Singh aforesaid, it was stated, had no land. The defendant came under their influence and got released a loan of Rs 2,70,000/- from Punjab and Sind Bank, Barnala. It is alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff failed to re-pay the loan amount as well as instalments to the Bank. Budh Singh told the defendant that he was in need of money and that plaintiff was his relative and he could not take cash loan from the plaintiff. Therefore, Budh Singh asked the defendant to take cash loan from the plaintiff and give it to him. On the asking of Budh Singh, the defendant took a cash loan of Rs 35,000/- from the plaintiff for Budh Singh. The defendant gave Rs 35,000/- to Budh Singh in the presence of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent vide judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007. The appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2007. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has submitted that the evidence on record to the effect that the loan was actually taken by the defendant-appellant for and on behalf of Budh Singh has not been correctly considered and appreciated by the Courts below. Therefore, it is 2 CM 799-C of 2008 and RSA 245 of 2008 contended that mis-reading of evidence is a substantial question of law which requires consideration by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and perusing the judgments of the Courts below, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel. It is not disputed that the defendant, in his written statement as also in his affidavit Ex DW1/A, has accepted the position that on 15.11.2001, he had executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. The defendant, it was observed, had failed to prove that he had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that the pronote and receipt are without consideration. DW3 – Vigiyan Ranjan, Clerk of Punjab and Sind Bank, Barnala, was examined who stated that the defendant had applied for a loan on 6.10.2000. On the application submitted by the defendant, the Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs 3.50 lakhs on mortgage of his land with the Bank. Thereafter, the defendant, on 5.7.2005, deposited the borrowed amount with the Bank. The loan in pursuance of the pronote executed by the defendant, was taken on 15.11.2001. There is no evidence on record to show that the loan amount that was taken by the defendant, was given to Budh Singh, as is the case set up by the defendant. The learned Lower Appellate Court has observed that the deposition of Vigiyan Ranjan, Clerk (DW3) shows that the loan was raised by the defendant in his individual capacity and he was liable to repay the outstanding amount. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount of Rs 35,000/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of execution of pronote till realisation. However, in appeal, the interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the trial Court was upheld for the period from 15.11.2001 i.e. the date of execution of the promissory note and receipt till the institution of the suit 3 CM 799-C of 2008 and RSA 245 of 2008 which was filed on 17.7.2004. Thereafter, from the institution of the suit till realization, interest @ 6% p.a. was awarded on the principal amount of Rs 35,000/-. In the circumstances, the judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below are based on sound reasons after appreciation of evidence and facts. No question of law is involved in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 30.1.2008. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4