L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Amarjit Singh has filed the instant second appeal.

2. Kaptan Singh respondent filed suit against the appellant for recovery of Rs 62,524/- alleging that the defendant on 15.11.2002 borrowed Rs 40,600/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same but the defendant did not pay any amount in spite of service of notice. The plaintiff in the suit claimed interest @ 1.50% per month only. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs 40,600/- as principal amount and Rs 21,924/- as interest amount till filing of the suit i.e. for total amount of Rs 62,524/-.

3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations. The defendant denied having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff or having executed any pronote or receipt. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2007 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008 and thereby plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs 62,524/- has been decreed with costs alongwith interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. On the preceding date of hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent raised preliminary objection that the instant second appeal is not maintainable as the appellant has not complied with provision of Order 41 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) requiring the appellant filing appeal against decree for payment of money to deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or to furnish security in respect thereof. However, on the basis of non-compliance with the aforesaid provision, the appeal itself cannot be dismissed and rather stay of execution of the decree appealed against may be declined. It has been so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan versus State Bank of India, 1998 (8) Supreme Court Cases 676, Malwa Strips Private Limited versus Jyoti Limited, [2009(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1874 : 2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1352 (SC)] : 2009(2) Supreme Court Cases 426 and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited versus Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 2009(8) Supreme Court Cases 646. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondent is over-ruled.

7. On merits, learned counsel for the appellant contended that both attesting witnesses of pronote-cum-receipt were shaken in crossexamination when they denied having attested any receipt and rather stated that defendant had not executed any receipt. The contention cannot be accepted as also rightly repelled by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff besides himself entering into witness box has examined both attesting witnesses of pronote-cum-receipt and both of them stated according to plaintiff’s version that defendant had borrowed Rs 40,600/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt. The statements made by the attesting witnesses in cross-examination that receipt was not executed may appear to support the aforesaid contention of counsel for the appellant but in fact not much weight can be attached to the so called discrepancy in the statements of the attesting witnesses. They are rural rustic villagers. In common parlance pronote-cum-receipt which is a single document is always referred to as pronote. Even most of the advocates refer to pronote-cumreceipt as pronote. Consequently, if the attesting witnesses stated in the cross-examination that only pronote was executed and receipt was not executed, it does not make their statements unreliable in any manner. On the other hand, both the said attesting witnesses Maghar Singh P