R.S.A.No. 4991 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4991 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.5.2011 Jai Ram ......Appellant Versus Om Parkash .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate and Mr.Robin Dutt, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 21.5.2002. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. The execution of the pronote and receipt for advancement of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant was also denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “ 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover ` R.S.A.No. 4991 of 2010 (O&M) 2 1,23,335/- as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has money lender licence ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is premature ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD 5. Relief. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2009, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by the defendant, vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery basing his claim on pronote and receipt dated 21.5.2002. In order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, the plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and examined the scribe Vir Parkash Jain as PW-2 and Dhuman Singh, attesting witness, as PW-3. The said witnesses deposed qua due execution of the pronote and receipt in question. The defendant, on the other hand, failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. The defendant had admitted his signatures on the pronote and receipt. Since the said documents were duly signed by the defendant, a presumption arises that the same had been executed by the defendant after the loan of ` 65,000/- was advanced to him by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the pronote and receipt in question R.S.A.No. 4991 of 2010 (O&M) 3 were duly executed by the defendant. The said finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 24, 2011 anita