R.S.A No. 1094 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1094 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : May 05, 2010 Iqbal Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Gurnam Singh, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for recovery on the basis of a pronote. The trial Court had dismissed the suit primarily on the ground of there being some inconsistencies in the statement of the plaintiff with regard to an earlier transaction between the parties, as also the fact that the plaintiff was Nambardar of the village and one of the attesting witnesses was chowkidar of that village. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff- respondent had not been able to prove the source of amount which he had R.S.A No. 1094 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: allegedly advanced to the appellant/defendant. Another factor which weighed with the trial Court was that the respondent had mentioned that the appellant had appended his signatures on the documents, whereas in actuality thumb impressions were there. The lower appellate Court held that since the appellant had accepted his thumb impressions on the negotiable instrument viz pronote, the onus to prove that the same was vitiated on any ground lay heavily upon him. As per the lower appellate Court, the appellant could not discharge this heavy onus. The lower appellate Court further noticed that it was the case of the appellant that he had sent reply to the legal notice issued to him by the respondent but could not prove any such reply. It was on a conspectus of these facts that the lower appellate Court held that the respondent had been able to prove the due execution of the pronote and the passing of consideration and consequently decreed the suit. As against the pre-decree claim of 2% per month interest, however, the lower appellate Court granted interest @ 6% p.a from the date of pronote till the date of recovery. The following questions have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the plaintiff/respondent has been able to prove the source from where a huge amount of Rs.1,95,000/- was paid to the defendant/appellant on 29.7.2000 ? ii) Whether the pronote and receipt Exs.P2 and P-3 are surrounded by suspicious circumstances ? iii) Whether there are material contradictions in the statements of PW1-Plaintiff and PW2 attesting witness Sadda Singh ? R.S.A No. 1094 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: iv) Whether the attesting witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff are stock witnesses ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 05, 2010. JUDGE `kk'