R.S.A.No. 2112 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2112 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.9.2009 Milkh Raj ......Appellant Versus Sham Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Sham Singh filed a suit for recovery, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Fazilka vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2005. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 2112 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff-respondent before the learned lower Court are that on 2.5.2000, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and in lieu thereof exexuted the pronote and receipt in his favour on 2.5.2000. The defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2% per annum. However, the defendant failed to make the payment of the principal amount or the interest thereon despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff. Even the pronote was also presented to the defendant to make the payment of the amount in question but he has put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Even before the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant through his counsel by registered post but the defendant failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, who appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has concealed the material and patent facts from the court and as such the suit is not maintainable; that the defendant is an illiterate person and does not know how to read and write Punjabi, whereas the pronote and receipt bears the signatures of the defendant in Punjabi which are forged and fabricated documents and as such R.S.A.No. 2112 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The defendant further submitted that the defendant is a resident of Village Salemshah, whereas the plaintiff is a resident of village Mullianwali and there is no dealing between them nor he ever borrowed any money from the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged pronote and receipt; that the alleged amount is a big sum and there was no occasion for the defendant to borrow this amount from the plaintiff; that the present suit has been filed just to harass the defendant and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs; that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. On merits, the defendant affirmed the stand as taken up in the preliminary objection and it was inter alia pleaded that since no amount was borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged pronote and receipt, the question of its payment does not arise. The plaintiff is not known to the defendant and as such there was no question of any monetary dealings between them. Rest of the averments were denied and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the defendant borrowed an amoun of R.S.A.No. 2112 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Rs.1,50,000/- on 2.5.2000 and in lieu thereof executed pronote and receipt dated 2.5.2000? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on loan amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- if so at what rate? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 2.5.2000 is result of fraud and fabricated? OPD 5. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff Sham Singh had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 2.5.2000. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined PW-1 Arjan Dass, who had scribed the pronote and receipt Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 respectively. In order to establish the due execution of the pronote and receipt, plaintiff also examined PW-3 Sukhchain Singh, one of the attesting witnesses to the pronote and receipt. The plaintiff himself also appeared in the witness box as PW-2 in support of his case. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt were duly proved to have been executed by the defendant and hence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The plea taken by the appellant was that he was an R.S.A.No. 2112 of 2009 (O&M) 5 illiterate person and hence, could not sign the pronote and receipt. However, apart from the oral evidence led by the appellant, he failed to establish that the pronote and receipt were not signed by him. Moreover, from the testimony of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff, it was duly established that the pronote and receipt were executed by the appellant after acceptance of the amount in question. The finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below does not call for any interference in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 07, 2009 anita