RSA No. 97 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 97 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.5.2009 Gurcharan Singh … Appellant. Versus. Ram Dabaya … Respondent CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate, for the respondent … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appellant was the defendant in the suit for recovery preferred by plaintiff, Ram Dabaya. Plaintiff in his suit pleaded that on 27.1.1999, defendant Gurcharan Singh had borrowed from him a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- at the interest rate of 2 per cent per month and in lieu thereof, executed pronote and receipt of the even date in his favour in present of the witnesses. Defendant however did not pay anything out of the principal or interest despite repeated demands and service of notice by the plaintiff and this led to filing of the present suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendant in his written statement took up the plea that plaintiff’s son Rakesh Kumar was a Commission Agent and he(defendant) had been selling his produce at his shop. He had full faith in Rakesh Kumar who used to obtain his thumb- impressions on blank proformas on the pretext of selling his produce. However, later on when he stopped selling his produce at his shop, said Rakesh Kumar along with his father, i.e. the plaintiff, prepared forged and fabricated documents on the basis of which the present suit was filed against him. It may be apt to mention that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Ram Dabaya died and an application was filed to bring on record RSA No. 97 of 2008 2 his legal representatives but the trial Court adjourned the case sine die with a direction for production of succession certificate of the estate of the deceased and thereafter, the case was to be restored. Later, on production of said succession certificate in favour of Satinder Pal and Rakesh sons of late Ram Dabaya, the suit was restored. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.1.2007 and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs.1,24,680/- (Rs.1,10,000/- as principal amount and Rs.14,680/- as interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of pronote till filing of the suit) along with future interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the decretal amount till actual realization thereof. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2007. Hence, the second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record, have concurrently held that plaintiff has produced cogent evidence in support of due execution of the pronote and the receipt in lieu of the loan amount taken by the defendant. It has been observed that PW-1 Sohan Singh and PW-2 Satpal Singh, i.e. scribe and attesting witness of the documents, namely, pronote and receipt, Exhibits P-1 and P-2, respectively, who appeared as PW-1 and PW-2 and deposed in support of these documents, were cross-examined at length but their testimony could not be shaken. The plea of the defendant that the plaintiff was a money-lender was also negatived by the Courts below while holding that defendant has not produced an iota of evidence to substantiate the same particularly when he himself has stated that he did not know as to how many persons borrowed money from the plaintiff. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. May 22, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE RSA No. 97 of 2008 3