R.S.A.No. 1323 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1323 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.1.2011 Narang Singh ......Appellant Versus Chuhar Lal and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.P.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Jatinder Singla, Advocate for respondents. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery basing their claim on pronote and receipt dated 29.4.2000. As per the said pronote and receipt, the defendant had borrowed ` 4,50,000/- from the plaintiffs but had failed to return the same. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the factum of execution of pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiffs. It was averred that plaintiff No.1 and Mohan Lal were running the R.S.A.No. 1323 of 2009 (O&M) 2 business of commission agents in the name and style of M/s Gopal Krishan Girdhari Lal. The defendant used to sell his crops to the plaintiffs. Due to strained relations between the parties, defendant has filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the plaintiffs and Mohan Lal. The present suit had been filed as a counter blast to the suit filed by the defendant. The signatures of the defendant had been taken on some blank printed papers and on the said papers, the pronote and receipt had been fabricated. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendant took a loan of ` 4,50,000/- from the plaintiffs on 29.4.2000 and executed a pronote and receipt in lieu thereof as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of ` 6,79,500/- from the defendant as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any further interest from the defendant ? If so, to what extent? OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5.Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD 5-A. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 29.4.2000 are the result of fraud and are forged and fabricated ? OPD 6. Relief. R.S.A.No. 1323 of 2009 (O&M) 3 The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.2008 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 8.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery basing their claim on pronote and receipt Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 respectively. A perusal of the pronote and receipt reveal that these have been duly signed by the defendant. The receipt has been attested by Ashok Kumar and Kailash Chand. There is nothing on record to suggest that the pronote and receipt have been tampered with. The defendant has duly signed in such a manner that the revenue stamps have been duly crossed. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiffs examined the attested witnesses of the receipt, Ashok Kumar and Kailash Chand, who had deposed qua due execution of the pronote and receipt and duly proved the fact that the amount of ` 4,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Plaintiff Chuhar Lal appeared in the witness box in support of his case. The plea of the defendant that he had signed at some blank printed papers is liable to be rejected in view of the R.S.A.No. 1323 of 2009 (O&M) 4 evidence led by the plaintiff in support of the execution of pronote and receipt. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2011 anita