R.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.2.2009 Buta Singh ....Appellant Versus Surekha ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. D.S.Gurna, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendant's appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 4.2.2008 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 1.10.2008. The plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,89,000/-, which included Rs.1,10,000/- as principal and Rs.79,000/- as interest, against the present appellant, on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 30.5.1999. The pronote was executed in the presence of marginal witnesses, namely Manmohan Lal and Suresh Kumar and was scribed by Naresh Kumar. The appellant was made to understand the contents of the pronote and he appended his signature thereupon. On the appellant's default in returning the amount, the suit was filed. R.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The appellant, who contested the suit, contended that the pronote is forged and fabricated and that the suit is barred by limitation. He denied the execution of the pronote and also denied the factum of borrowing the sum from the respondent. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether defendant executed pronote and receipt dated 30.5.1999 in favour of plaintiff?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is not licensed money lender?OPD 5. Whether the pronote and receipt dated 30.5.1999 is forged and fabricated document?OPD 6. Relief. The learned trial Court on appraisal of evidence before it concluded that the execution of the pronote was adequately proved and the stand of the appellant was incorrect. The suit was decreed. In appeal, the findings of the learned trial Court were affirmed. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings of both the Courts below has reiterated the stand of the appellant in the written statement to contend that the pronote is forged and fabricated and that no amount had been borrowed. A perusal of the impugned judgments shows that the R.S.A. No. 6 of 2009 (O&M) -3- execution of pronote and receipt was proved by the plaintiff/respondent by examining herself as PW3, Manmohan Lal as PW1 and Naresh Kumar as PW2. The appellant had taken up the plea of complete denial which he had failed to establish before the Courts below. He had pleaded that there was forgery and fraud, but there is no such evidence to prove the plea as raised by him in his pleadings. In this view of the matter, since both the Courts below have held that the execution of pronote stood established, the appeal, which does not throw up any substantial question of law for adjudication of this Court, is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 16.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss