RSA No.3627 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH RSA No.3627 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 12, 2009 Paramjit Singh ...........Appellant Versus Darshan Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich,Advocate for the appellant, -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiff-Darshan Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,01,460/- (Rs.2,00,000/- as principal amount and Rs.1,01,460/- as interest amount) from the defendant Paramjit Singh on the basis of pronote and receipt with future interest @ Rs.1.56 paise percent per month till its realization. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 6 per cent per annum w.e.f. 10.5.2000 till its realization. Aggreived by the same, defendant-Paramjit Singh filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant-Paramajit Singh. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, reads as under:- “2. Before the learned lower Court, the plaintiff Darshan Singh alleged that on 10.5.2000, the defendant Paramjit Singh borrowed from him a cash loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and agreed to pay interest thereon at the rate of Rs.1.56% per RSA No.3627 of 2009 (O&M) 2 month. A pronote and receipt to that effect were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff which were attested by the witnesses. It is alleged that the defendant/borrower Paramjit Singh has not repaid to him anything towards principal or interest thereon. Hence, before the learned lower court plaitniff's suit for recovery of Rs.3,01,460/- (Rs.2,00,000/- towards principal sum and Rs. 1,01,460/- towards interest thereon) with costs and with interest thereon. 3. Before the learned lower court, the defendant Paramjit Singh contested the suit and filed a written statement wherein he simply denied having borrowed the loan in question from the plaintiff and denied having executed any pronote and receipt in question are the result of fraud and mis-representation and further contended that the plaintiff is a moneylender without a money lending licence. The defendant pleaded that there are running money transactions between the parties and towards guarantee, the plaintiff got from him signed the blank pronote/receipt, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with costs." On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Wheher the defendant took a cash loan of Rs.Two Lakhs from the plaintiff on 10.5.2000 and had executed a pronote and receipt of even date in favour of the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs is entitled to recover interest, if so at RSA No.3627 of 2009 (O&M) 3 what rate?OPP 3. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the pronote and receipt are result of fraud and misrepresentation and without consideration?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is money lender, if so its effect?OPD 7. Relief." After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 10.5.2000, Exhibis P1 and P2 resepectively. In order to prove his case, plaintiffs examined the scribe Amarjit Singh, PW1, attesting witness, Vijay Kumar, PW3 and Kamal Kumar, PW4 respectively. Plaintiff himself also appeared in the witness box as PW2. The said witnesses deposed with regard to the execution of the pronote and receipt. The appellant-defendant, on the other hand, denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt. Both the sides examined their experts in order to substantiate their pleas and the experts gave report in favour of the parties who had engaged them. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have given a finding of fact with regard to the execution of the pronote and receipt and the said finding of fact cannot be interfered with by this Court in regular second appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this RSA No.3627 of 2009 (O&M) 4 appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 12, 2009 arya