R.S.A.No. 3693 of 2008(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No. 3693 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 21st August, 2009 Manjit Kaur and others ……..Appellants Versus Didar Singh and another …….Respondents Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate for the appellants. Rajive Bhalla, J The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 12.02.2007 and 14.01.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sardulgarh and the District Judge, Mansa, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no. 1 and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 85,000/- with interest @1.50 per month on the allegation that Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh (since deceased) had raised a loan duly reflected in a pronote and a receipt, during his life time. In response, the appellants denied the execution of the pronote, the receipt or the fact that Balwinder Singh had borrowed a sum of Rs. 85,000/-. 1 R.S.A.No. 3693 of 2008(O&M) After framing issues, the trial court called upon parties to lead evidence. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,30,700/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2008, the District Judge, Mansa, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal, as respondent no. 1 has failed to adduce any evidence to prove the signatures and the thumb impressions of Balwinder Singh deceased. It is argued that as the appellants have denied the execution of the pronote, the receipt and the loan, the onus to prove the handwriting and the thumb impressions of Balwinder Singh lay upon respondent no. 1. It is submitted that in the absence of any such evidence to prove, the handwriting and the thumb impressions, the courts below committed an error and therefore, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:- “1. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by both the ld. Courts are against the settled principle of law? 2 R.S.A.No. 3693 of 2008(O&M) 2. Whether judgment and decree passed by to the ld. Courts below are against the facts and evidence produced on record of the case? 3. Whether the onus of proving the pronote receipt was not on the respondent/plaintiff by proving the same by producing the convincing evidence?” I have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgments and decrees and considered the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellants. As held by the courts below, the pronote and the receipt have been proved by respondent no. 1 by the depositions of PW-2 and PW-3, the scribe and the attesting witness respectively. Admittedly, the appellants raised a plea of fraud. The onus to establish the ingredients of fraud, lay upon the appellant. The appellants have however, failed to produce any evidence in support of this plea. A bare denial of the signatures and thumb impressions would not suffice, in the absence of any other evidence. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the substantial questions of law framed by counsel for the appellants are misconceived. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 21st August, 2009 Skaushik 3