RSA No.3853 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3853 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision 23.9.2011. Bhura Singh ...... Appellant. versus Kewal Krishan ...... Respondent. Present : Ms. Sonia G.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.PURI . J. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2011 passed by Shri M.S.Chauhan, learned District Judge, Sangrur vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2010 passed by Shri Baljinder Singh, PCS, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated plaintiff Kewal Krishan filed suit for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest on the allegation that defendant Bhura Singh took a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff as loan and executed pronote and receipt dated 3.6.2002. Defendant failed to return the amount, hence the plaintiff is entitled to the principal amount along with interest. RSA No.3853 of 2011 2 3. On put to notice, Bhura Singh defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, the documents are forged and fabricated one. 4. On merits, it was pleaded that defendant never took any loan from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote and receipt. The plaintiff is a close relative of Murari Lal Sewak Ram, Commission Agents, who were running the business of commission agent at Sunam under the name and style Murari Lal and Sewak Ram and defendant used to sell his crop through that firm and his accounts were not settled by the said firm and because of that he stopped selling his crops through that firm for the last four years and the present suit has been filed at the instance of partner of the said firm. 5. It is further pleaded that defendant in the year 2000 sold his house to his brother Seeta Singh for Rs.1,00,000/- and the plaintiff was inter-mediator in the said sale, the defendant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as sale price of that house but out of that amount, plaintiff took Rs.50,000/- from him as “amaanat” and he assured to return the same upon demand of defendant. The present suit has been filed on the false allegations. 5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the contents of the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. 6. Following issues were framed :- -- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- RSA No.3853 of 2011 3 i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- as principal and Rs.50,000/- as interest from the defendant on the basis of pronote and receipt ?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate ?OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ?OPP 4. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents ?OPD 6. Relief. 7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case himself appeared as his own witness as (PW-1) and also examined V.B.Bhatnagar, Handwriting and fingerprint expert as (PW-2). 8. In rebuttal, defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and also examined Janta Singh as DW-2, Shashi Mohan, Advocate (DW-3) and Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and fingerprint Expert as (DW-4) and closed the evidence. 9. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.2010. 8. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 19.7.2010, defendants filed first appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal of the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2011. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2010 passed by the trial Court and judgment and decree dated 2.2.2011 passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendant/appellant has RSA No.3853 of 2011 4 preferred the present regular second appeal. 10. The appellant in paragraph No.10 of the grounds of appeal has mentioned that following substantial questions of law has arisen for decision in the present regular second appeal :- 1. Whether the non-consideration of expert witness has amounted in failure of justice as there is specific evidence that the pronote is tampered ? 2. Whether a pronote which is proved to be tendered can be decreed ? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of both the courts below are based on surmises and conjecture ? 4. Whether grave and manifest in justice has been caused to the appellants. 11. The sole controversy in the present lis is in respect of execution of a pronote and receipt and passing of consideration. The other point raised before both the Courts below by the defendant is that there are alteration in the pronote and receipt. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff has been able to prove the execution of the pronote and receipt and passing of consideration and the defendant has failed to prove that there is any cutting and in original in the pronote and receipt. The pronote and receipt bear the thumb impression of defendant. The plaintiff has examined the Expert to prove the thumb impression besides himself appeared as his own witness. The defendant has failed to prove how his thumb impression appeared on the pronote and receipt. 12. In view of the above discussions, all the substantial questions raised above by the learned counsel for the appellant stand determined RSA No.3853 of 2011 5 against the appellant and consequently the regular second appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 13. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE September 23, 2011 sv