RSA No. 4040 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 4040 of 2008
Decided on : 31-08-2009
Amrik Singh
....Appellant
VERSUS
Sukhwinder Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the appellant
HEMANT GUPTA, J
The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the
judgment and decree whereby suit, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated
11.12.2003 to the sum of Rs.24,500/- alongwith interest of Rs.13,759/- was
decreed by the learned First Appellate Court. The execution of the pronote
is sought to be proved by examining Karamjit Singh and Gurdev Singh
attesting witnesses of the receipt Ex.P-2 and by plaintiff appearing as his
wife. It has been found that both the witnesses have deposed to execution
of receipt of Rs.24,500/- by the defendant and execution of the documents
in their presence. Their statement is also in support of the agreement of the
respondent to pay interest at the rate of 1.56% per month and the receipt of
the amount of pronote by the defendant.
The First Appellate Court also considered the statement of
defendant appearing as DW1 wherein the defendant has denied signatures
on the pronote and receipt. The stand of the defendant, that the said
documents are result of fraud and mis-representation, was found to be
RSA No. 4040 of 2008 2
lacking in plea and in evidence. In view of the said fact, the suit based on
pronote and receipt was decreed. Aggrieved against the said judgment and
decree the defendant is in second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that
the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court in respect of execution of
pronote and receipt suffer from illegality and mis-reading of evidence. It is
contended that both the attesting witnesses of the receipt have denied the
execution of receipt in their presence in their cross-examination. Therefore,
the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable.
The defendant while appearing as witness has not denied his
signatures on the pronote and receipt. The pronote is not required to be
attested. Therefore, the statement of the attesting witnesses to a receipt
denying execution of receipt in their presence is not sufficient to return a
finding that the pronote is also not proved to be executed. The defendant
has raised a plea of fraud and mis-representation. However, no evidence
was led in support of such plea. Therefore, once the defendant has not
denied his signatures on the pronote and in the absence of any proof of
fraud and mis-representation, the same is proved to be executed. Therefore,
the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court cannot be said to be
suffering from any illegality or irregularity.
Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that interest
is awarded on a higher side and nterest at the rate of 1.56 % per month is
excessive.
Once the defendant has agreed to pay such interest, such rate of
interest cannot be said to be onerous so as to permit the defendant to dispute
the same. As a matter of fact, the grant of future interest at the rate of 6%
RSA No. 4040 of 2008 3
per annum from the date of filing of the suit compensates the grant of claim
of interest at the rate of 1.56% from the date of pronote till the filing of the
suit.
In view of above, no substantial question of law arises in the
present appeal for the consideration of this Court.
Hence, dismissed.
August 31, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) rekha Judge