RSA No. 1946 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1946 of 2007 Decided on : 24-03-2009 Albel Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Surjit Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. A.S.Jattana, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 4.4.2005 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 5.2.2007. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- alongwith interest of Rs.67,200/- from the appellant by alleging that he had borrowed the same and executed a pronote and a receipt in support thereof. The appellant-defendant denied the execution of the pronote and pleaded fraud. The following issues were struck during the course of trial:- 1) Whether defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.1.1999 in cash and in lieu thereof executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff?OPP. 2) To what rate of interest, if any plaintiff is entitled to?OPP. 3) Whether alleged pronote and receipt dated 24.11.1999 are forged and fabricated document?OPD. RSA No. 1946 of 2007 2 4) Whether there are material alterations in alleged pronote and receipt?OPD. 5) Whether plaintiff is money lender and does not possess any licence for the same?OPD. 6) Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of actin to file this suit?OPD. 7) Whether defendant is entitled to special costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- u/s 35-A of the Civil Procedure Code?OPD. 8) Relief. Both the Courts concluded that the plaintiff-respondent had successfully established the execution of the pronote which is on record as Ex.P-1 and the receipt which is on record as Ex.P-2 and thereafter went on to decree the suit. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the defendant-appellant is in regular second appeal to contend that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and also to contend that a perusal of the record of the Trial Court reveals that the evidence of the appellant was closed by virtue of an order. It is the contended case of the appellant that once the evidence of the appellant had been closed by way of a judicial order then the only course open to the Court was to decide the matter there and then since the parties were present. He referred to the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 in support of his contentions. Reliance was placed on case titled as 'Didar Singh and others versus Smt. Manso and others' 1978 RLR 608. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact and that the execution of the pronote having been established there was no RSA No. 1946 of 2007 3 scope for interference in a regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the execution of the pronote was duly established by the plaintiff-respondent by examining PW1- Naresh Kumar who had scribed the pronote and the receipt. PW2 Rajinder Singh who is the attesting witness was also examined who testified the execution of the pronote in his presence. PW5 Dr. Atul Kumar Singla was also examined by the plaintiff-respondent who established the veracity of the signatures of the appellant on the pronote. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by both the Courts below regarding the execution of the pronote and its validity cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any interference. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 were not complied with do not enhance his case at all. He is the defendant in the suit and if the Courts had proceeded pursuant to the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 it would have invited decree on the same date. In any eventuality decree has been passed against him and he cannot raise any question regarding the aforesaid procedure since no prejudice has been caused to him. This argument, if at all available, was available to the plaintiff in the proceedings but not to the defendant who infact benefitted by getting time in which he could have challenged the order passed by the learned Trial Court closing his evidence. It is a separate matter that no such challenge was made by the appellant. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no ambiguity or illegality in the findings recorded by RSA No. 1946 of 2007 4 both the Courts below. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 24 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge