***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. --

CM-2014-C-2025

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 23 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit of the ld. Counsel of applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 23 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA-5 85-2025 (O&M)

Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.7,89,250/- (Rs.5,50,000/- principal amount alongwith interest) on the basis of Pronote dated 01.06.2016 issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, has been decreed by both the Courts below directing the defendant to pay Rs.5,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 01.06.2016 and future interest @ 6% per annum from date of decree till its actual realisation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the impugned judgments and decrees are against the law and facts on file as the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the respondent has failed to prove the issue No.1 on record. It is submitted that on the other hand, appellant has fully proven on file that the alleged Pronote and Receipt dated 01.06.2016 are fake documents prepared by the respondent with the help of marginal witnesses and by forging the signatures of the appellant for which the respondent and the said witnesses are liable to be prosecuted. It is contended that the appellant had never borrowed alleged amount of Rs.5,50,000/- or any other amount from the respondent nor he had ever executed the alleged Pronote and Receipt dated 01.06.2016 in favour of the respondent. Thus, the same was not legally binding upon the respondent and had to be set aside. However, the learned Courts below have failed to correctly appreciate the evidence led by the appellant in this regard. It is submitted that even the marginal witness PW2 Jagtar Singh is cousin of the appellant and is inimical towards the appellant. As such, his evidence could not be taken into consideration. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside.

3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard ld. Counsel and perused the case file in great detail.

4. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant as it is categoric finding of the learned Courts below that marginal witnesses PW2 Jagtar Singh and PW3 Ranjit Singh had duly proven the execution of the Pronote and passing of Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant. They had proved that after taking the amount, the defendant had executed Pronote Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and Receipt Ex.P2. What is more, defendant has not even denied his signatures on the Pronote and Receipt. Accordingly, learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2022 has duly noted that “The defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and once the signatures are admitted, the presumption of section 118 and 139 of NI Act is in favour of plaintiff that the instrument has been executed for legal liability. Now onus on defendant to rebut this presumption. Before looking into the evidence led by the defendant, it is necessary to look into defence taken by him. He has taken the plea that he has no concern with the plaintiff, and he has neither borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed the said pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The second defence is that the said pronote is forged and fabricated. ……… Rather the other witnesses i.e. Jagtar Singh and Ranjit Singh duly proved the due execution of pronote and passing of Rs.5,50,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant. They duly proved that this amount was duly paid to defendant and he after receiving the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- had executed the pronote in favour of plaintiff. All the witnesses have further corroborated that the amount was duly received by the defendant in the presence of witnesses and thereafter the pronote was executed. Hence, plaintiff has proved the granting of loan of Rs.5,50,000/- to defendant by examining both the witnesses of the pronote and receipt. Plaintiff has duly proved pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex. P2. Defendant has not denied his signatures on the pronote and receipt and has failed to prove the defences taken by him. Hence, plaintiff in the considered opinion of the Court is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- from the defendant along-with interest @ 12% per annum from 01.06.2016 and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till its actual realization. Hence, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.”

5. The record further reveals that it has also been admitted by the defendant that he had not moved any complaint before any police authorities or any other higher authorities against the plaintiff for the alleged forgery and fabrication of the Pronote. It has also come on record that the plaintiff and defendant were known to each other and were having family relations. Even both the marginal witnesses are known to the parties. The very fact that the cousin of the appellant is deposing against the appellant, would prove the case against the appellant. The defendant led no evidence to prove the alleged forgery committed by the plaintiff. Even the argument of the appellant that plaintiff had no paying capacity, was shown to be false as it was proved on record that plaintiff is cultivating 20-25 acres of land.

6. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********