R.S.A No. 3547 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M Nos.10578-81-C of 2008 and R.S.A No. 3547 of 2008 Date of decision : August 18, 2009 Ajmer Singh and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Lachhman Dass ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J C.M.No.10579-C of 2008 For the reasons stated, C.M is allowed and the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.10580-C of 2008 For the reasons stated, C.M is allowed and the delay of 60 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M Nos.10578 & 10581-C of 2008 and R.S.A No.3547 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned R.S.A No. 3547 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and consequently decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery on the basis of a pronote. The following questions have been proposed :- “ a) Whether any evidence beyond pleading can be admissible ? b) Whether the presumption u/s 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, if so then the onus lies upon the plaintiff to prove the consideration with cogent evidence ? c) Whether the exhibition of the document dispensed with its proof ? d) Whether the wrong appreciation of law is sustainable in the eyes of law, when there is concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff is not in a capacity to pay the amount ?” It would be seen that questions No. (a), (b) and (c) are the main questions which relate to the factual aspect of due execution of the promissory pronote for consideration and are, therefore, pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has taken me through the findings of the lower appellate Court as well as the evidence of the parties but I regret my inability to concur with him that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court on this factual aspect is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence as would render the same perverse. No arguments have been addressed on question No. (d). Consequently, holding the questions against the appellants, this R.S.A No. 3547 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: appeal and C.M Nos. 10578 & 10581-C of 2008 are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk'