R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.04.2009 Baldev Singh ....appellant versus Jugraj Singh ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5212-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making good the deficiency in Court fee. It is averred in the application, that due to inadvertance, less Court fee was affixed, which has been made good. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and the delay in making good the deficiency in Court fee is condoned. C.M. No. 5213-C of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 222 in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, C.M. is allowed and R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the delay of 222 days in refiling the appeal is ordered to be condoned. R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008 passed by the learned Courts below decreeing the suit for recovery, filed by the plaintiff/respondent, on the basis of pronote and receipt. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery to recover the principal amount of Rs.3,30,000/- along with interest, on the basis of pronote and receipt. The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant, wherein stand was taken that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents, having been obtained on the promise of settlement of account, as he used to sell agricultural produce at the shop of plaintiff/respondent, thus, had dealing with plaintiff/respondent being commission agent. It was also pleaded that pronote and receipt are without any consideration and, thus, not enforceable. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the defendant/appellant executed the pronote and receipt, after receipt of money. This finding has been recorded in view of the fact that the defendant/appellant failed to prove his dealing with the plaintiff/respondent qua sale of agricultural produce. The learned Courts below also held that the plaintiff/respondent was able to prove the passing of consideration as well as due execution of pronote and receipt and, thus, drew inference under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to draw presumption of passing of consideration, which could not be rebutted by the R.S.A. No. 1785 of 2009 (O&M) -3- appellant/defendant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of mis-reading and mis-application of evidence and, thus, perverse?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the pronote and receipt was signed blank, which was filled later on. Thus, the important aspect has been completely ignored by the learned Courts below while decreeing the suit, by drawing inference under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was not permissible, as the very fact that the pronote and receipt were signed blank proved the fact that no consideration was passed on. This plea cannot be accepted, in view of the positive finding recorded by the learned Courts below that the pronote and receipt were duly filled when consideration was passed on. The substantial question of law on the facts and circumstances of the case, is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 29, 2009 R.S.