RSA No. 4040 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4040 of 2008 Decided on : 31-08-2009 Amrik Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Sukhwinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the appellant HEMANT GUPTA, J The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree whereby suit, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 11.12.2003 to the sum of Rs.24,500/- alongwith interest of Rs.13,759/- was decreed by the learned First Appellate Court. The execution of the pronote is sought to be proved by examining Karamjit Singh and Gurdev Singh attesting witnesses of the receipt Ex.P-2 and by plaintiff appearing as his wife. It has been found that both the witnesses have deposed to execution of receipt of Rs.24,500/- by the defendant and execution of the documents in their presence. Their statement is also in support of the agreement of the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 1.56% per month and the receipt of the amount of pronote by the defendant. The First Appellate Court also considered the statement of defendant appearing as DW1 wherein the defendant has denied signatures on the pronote and receipt. The stand of the defendant, that the said documents are result of fraud and mis-representation, was found to be RSA No. 4040 of 2008 2 lacking in plea and in evidence. In view of the said fact, the suit based on pronote and receipt was decreed. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree the defendant is in second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in respect of execution of pronote and receipt suffer from illegality and mis-reading of evidence. It is contended that both the attesting witnesses of the receipt have denied the execution of receipt in their presence in their cross-examination. Therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable. The defendant while appearing as witness has not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt. The pronote is not required to be attested. Therefore, the statement of the attesting witnesses to a receipt denying execution of receipt in their presence is not sufficient to return a finding that the pronote is also not proved to be executed. The defendant has raised a plea of fraud and mis-representation. However, no evidence was led in support of such plea. Therefore, once the defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and in the absence of any proof of fraud and mis-representation, the same is proved to be executed. Therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that interest is awarded on a higher side and nterest at the rate of 1.56 % per month is excessive. Once the defendant has agreed to pay such interest, such rate of interest cannot be said to be onerous so as to permit the defendant to dispute the same. As a matter of fact, the grant of future interest at the rate of 6% RSA No. 4040 of 2008 3 per annum from the date of filing of the suit compensates the grant of claim of interest at the rate of 1.56% from the date of pronote till the filing of the suit. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal for the consideration of this Court. Hence, dismissed. August 31, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) rekha Judge