R.S.A.No. 1260 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1260 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:July 07, 2009 Surinder Singh ---Appellant versus Harjit Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA, J. Harjit Singh-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 16.5.2000. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 6.8.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008. Hence the present appeal. The case of the parties as noticed by learned District Judge, Patiala, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment is as under:- The brief facts of the case are that Harjit Singh –plaintiff filed the suit against Surinder Singh defendant under Order 37 CPC R.S.A.No. 1260 of 2009(O&M) {2} for recovery of Rs. 4,08,000/- i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- as principal and Rs. 1,08,000/- as interest on the basis of demand promissory note and its receipt dated 16.5.2000 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff along with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realization of the amount etc. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint is that defendant approached the plaintiff on 16.5.2000 to advance a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- which was urgently required by the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant executed a demand promissory note dated 16.5.2000 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the advancement of loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the plaintiff. The execution of pronote and receipt was witnessed by Jagdish Ram and Narinder Kumar. The defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1.50% per month on the said amount. The defendant failed to repay the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest and legal notices dated 15.11.2001 and 28.1.2002 were served through Advocate upon the defendant. Hence, the suit. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. It is denied that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 16.5.2000 or executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. All the main averments are denied. It is stated that the plaintiff was never in a position to advance any such huge amount of Rs. 3 lac. There was no need to the defendant to borrow such a huge R.S.A.No. 1260 of 2009(O&M) {3} amount from the plaintiff. It is also the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is running the shop of commission agent under the name and style of M/s Hardeep Singh Bhag Singh Trading Company, 35-A, Anaj Mandi, Patiala with his son Hardeep Singh. The defendant used to sell his produce on the said shop for about six years. Plaintiff used to obtain thumb impressions of the defendant and other customers on the blank forms of pronote/receipt, blank account books and various other blank papers. As the plaintiff acted in unfair manner, so the defendant after settling the account of the plaintiff stopped the dealing with the plaintiff and his son. The plaintiff failed to return the blank documents to the defendant after the settlement of accounts. It is also stated that plaintiff and his son Hardeep Singh are threatening to recover some amount from the defendant, upon which the defendant filed a civil suit against the plaintiffs restraining them from recovering any amount from him in the court at Fatehgarh Sahib. The suit is barred under Section 11 CPC. Remaining averments are also mainly denied.” On pleadings of the parties, learned trial court had framed the following issues:- (1)Whether the defendant executed demand promissory note dated 16.5.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and received a sum of Rs. 3 lacs from him? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 4,08,000/- from the defendant including interest @ 18 % p.a.? R.S.A.No. 1260 of 2009(O&M) {4} OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP (4)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (5)Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of order 2 rule 2 CPC? OPD (6)Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata u/s 11 CPC? OPD (7)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD (8)Relief. Plaintiff in order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, examined PW-2- Narinder, one of the attesting witness of the receipt and himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1. Plaintiff also examined Navdeep Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Print expert to corroborate his plea that the pronote and receipt were duly thumb marked by the defendant. The said witnesses have proved the due execution of the pronote and receipt. Defendant on the other hand, has taken the plea that he used to sell his crop to the plaintiff, who was running a commission agent shop and his thumb impression had been obtained on a blank forms, pronote, receipt etc. Since the pronote and receipt are duly thumb marked by the appellant, a presumption arises that they had been duly executed by him after receipt of the loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Mere denial of the R.S.A.No. 1260 of 2009(O&M) {5} defendant to the effect that he had not executed the pronote and receipt is not sufficient to rebut the convincing evidence led by the plaintiff in support of his case. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 07, 2009 PARAMJIT