RSA No.223 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. RSA No.223 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 24.9,2010. Kartar Singh -- Appellant vs. Vijay Kumar -- Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.R.K.Girdhar,Advocate,for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,75,000/- with costs along-with interest @ 9% per annum over the principal amount from the date of execution of pronote and receipt i.e.29.10.2004 till the date of decree and at @ 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of decree till its realization was decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant had secured a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from plaintiff on interest @ 1 ½ % per month on 29.10.2004 after executing one pronote and receipt in the presence of the marginal witnesses. Since the defendant refused to make the payment, the present suit was filed. RSA No.223 of 2010 (O&M) 2 In reply, the case set up by the defendant is that the plaintiff is a money lender and is doing the business of money lending without holding a valid licence and pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents. It is alleged that the plaintiff is running a shop of Commission Agent with his father and brother where the defendant used to sell his agriculture produce and often borrow some amount. His brother Karan Kumar had obtained his signatures on blank pronote and receipt as security which has now been used for the purpose of this case. It is alleged that in the year 1997, the defendant had settled his accounts with the plaintiff and his brother and paid Rs.2,50,000/- to them after selling his 21 kanals 4 marlas land to Gurdeep Singh and thereafter, the defendant never visited their shop. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 18.5.2005. The plaintiff has proved pronote Ex.PB and receipt Ex.PC which was witnessed by marginal witness Lachhi Ram, who appeared as PW-2 and has fully supported the case of the plaintiff,whereas the defendant had examined Bhola Ram, Registration Clerk as DW-1, who had produced the original sale deed dated 13.5.1997. He also examined Thana Singh Lambardar as DW-2 and exhibited sale deed Ex.D-3. He himself appeared as DW-3 and deposed on the lines of his written statement. The learned Court below have found that the documents Exs. PB and PC have been duly executed . It was observed that presumption to said documents is attached under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act unless and until it is rebutted with cogent evidence. Insofar, the payment made by the defendant is concerned, there is no evidence on record except for the sale deed from which it is not proved that after RSA No.223 of 2010 (O&M) 3 selling the land, the payment was made to the plaintiff. As a matter of fact, no question of law much-less substantial is involved in this appeal or has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as envisaged under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short,'CPC') which could compel this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. 24.9.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge