Balwinder Singh Son Of Kehar Singh vs Surjit Singh Son Of Harmel Singh on 18 May, 2009

RSA No. 2847 of 2008                     1

      In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                ...


                                         RSA No. 2847 of 2008

                                         Date of decision: May 18,2009

Balwinder Singh son of Kehar Singh                             ..Appellant.

                                     Versus

Surjit Singh son of Harmel Singh                              ..Respondent

Coram:        Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

Present:     Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate
             for the appellant.

                       ...

Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.

This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and

decrees of the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for

recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt was decreed.

In brief, the case of the plaintiff-respondent was that defendant took

a cash loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 3.6.2001 and in lieu of this loan

amount, the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in

the presence of the witnesses and further agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2

% per month. The defendant failed to return the aforesaid amount on demand.

Hence this suit.

Upon notice, the defendant appeared and raised various

preliminary objections in the written statement. On merits, it was stated that the

appellant used to sell his crop at the Commission Agency of M/s Harmel Singh

Inder Singh, Commission Agents, New Grain Market, Muktsar and at that time

his signatures were obtained by Darshan Singh son of the real uncle of the

plaintiff who was the proprietor of the aforesaid firm on some blank pronote,

receipt and stamp papers as a surety. On clearance of his account at the said

commission agency, defendant demanded back the said blank pronote, receipt

and the stamp papers from Darshan Singh, however, he put off the matter. The

present suit has been filed after filling the said blank pronote and receipt in
RSA No. 2847 of 2008 2

favour of the plaintiff.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 8.85,000/-

along with interest on the basis of pronote and receipt ? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not within time ?OPD

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present

form ?OPD

4. Relief.

After recording evidence of both the parties, and hearing the

counsel for both the parties, the findings on all the issues were returned in favour

of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed in his favour vide impugned judgment

and decree dated 27.7.2004 by the trial Court.

Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the defendant filed an appeal which

was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide judgment and

decree dated 29.2.2008.

While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the

findings of the trial Court to the effect that execution of the pronote and receipt in

question and passing of the consideration to the defendant had been duly

proved on the record.

Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal

challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the

courts below have failed to appreciate that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to

prove the passing of consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the appellant and the

courts below have further failed to appreciate the fact that the blank pronote and

receipt which was previously signed by the appellant had been fabricated by the

plaintiff-respondent and thus, the following substantial questions of law arises in

this appeal:-

(i) Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below are
RSA No. 2847 of 2008 3

perverse and are based on misreading of evidence ?

ii)Whether such a huge loan transaction of Rs. 7,50,000/- can

be made in cash ?

I have heard heard learned counsel for the appellant.

From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the appellant had

taken a definite stand that he had executed blank pronote and receipt as a

collateral security which had been later on fabricated as the pronote and receipt

in question. However, in spite of the above said stand taken by the appellant, no

evidence has been placed on record by him to prove this assertion. The

contention of the appellant that the respondent has failed to prove the passing of

consideration of the pronote amount to the defendant is also without any merit.

The execution of the pronote and receipt in question has been duly proved on

the record. Even passing of consideration amount also stands proved on the

record in the light of the evidence available on the record. Under Section 118 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, there is a presumption that every

negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration. There is no evidence on

record to rebut the aforesaid presumption. This Court in the case of Jit Singh

Versus Nachhattar Singh and others 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 137 held as under:-

“In my opinion, once the plaintiff has proved that the pronote and receipt

were duly executed in accordance with law, then presumption

under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act for passing

of the consideration arises and the defendant can rebut that

presumption by leading evidence.”

Thus, I find no merit in this appeal.

No substantial question of law as argued by the counsel for the

appellant arises in this appeal.

Dismissed.

May 18, 2009                                  (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
         nk                                           JUDGE