RSA No.2216 of 2007 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2216 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision:26.07.2010. Ram Lal ...Appellant Versus Karam Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. M.K.Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. V.K.Shukla, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit of the plaintiff for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt has been decreed. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant had taken a loan of Rs.80,000/- from him on 26.04.2000 after executing a pronote and receipt. He agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 2% per month. Since he failed to repay the loan even on demand, the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,000/- including interest was filed. The defendant's case is that he had neither executed any pronote nor received any money from the plaintiff. Thus, it is a case RSA No.2216 of 2007 (O&M) -2- ***** of total denial. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. The plaintiff examined Charanjit Singh as PW1, Rakesh Kumar as PW2 and himself appeared as PW3, whereas the defendant did not lead any evidence as a result of which his evidence was closed by order of the Court. Both the Courts below had found that the defendant had executed the pronote and receipt in lieu of the amount he had secured from the plaintiff and as such the suit was decreed. In the present appeal, the defendant has filed an application to place certain documents on record to contend that the pronote and receipt (Ex.P1 & Ex.P2) are forged because the original pronote and receipt are with him which was handed over by the plaintiff when he had returned the entire amount of loan. It is, thus, submitted that the suit has been illegally decreed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has come up with a new case in second appeal wherein he alleges that he had taken the loan and returned the same and in pursuance thereof, the plaintiff had also handed over original pronote and receipt to him. But the story coined by the defendant cannot be believed as no such plea was taken by him in the written statement nor did he appear in the witness box to make a statement in this regard. It is submitted that in the absence of pleadings and proof of the repayment of the amount of loan and acquiring original pronote and receipt, no document much less the documents now RSA No.2216 of 2007 (O&M) -3- ***** placed on record could be considered at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, it is not a case of the defendant that he had returned the amount of loan to the plaintiff and had secured the original pronote and receipt. It is obvious that had he returned the amount of loan as alleged in the grounds of appeal, it would have been his first stand in the written statement instead of denying the pronote and receipt altogether. Moreover, the defendant could not muster enough courage to appear in the witness box at least to make a statement that he had returned the money secured as loan from the plaintiff. Thus, the case set up by the defendant in appeal is totally unbelievable. Hence, I do not find any reason to differ with the judgment and decree of the Courts below. Since no substantial question of law is found to have been involved in the present appeal, therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs. July 26, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE