Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - By this common judgment the above captioned appeals are being disposed of as similar point for consideration arises in both the appeals. Plaintiff-Appellant (Tarsem Kumar) filed two separate suits under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for recovery of Rs. 8,80,000/- (Rs. 6,00,000/- as principal and Rs. 2,80,000/- as interest) and Rs. 1,63,000/- (Rs. 1,15,000/- as principal and Rs. 48,000/- as interest). The suit for recovery of Rs. 8,80,000/- was filed against Teja Singh son of Kartar Singh while suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,000/- was filed against Sukhdev Singh son of Bhan Singh. Both the suits were based on separate pronotes dated 20.09.2005 executed by Teja Singh and Sukdhev Singh in favour of Tarsem Singh.

2. In later part of judgment parties will be referred as plaintiff and defendants as per the civil suits.

3. Defendant-Teja Singh in his written statement denied execution of the pronote and took the plea that he had been selling his crops on the shop of Rakesh Kumar son of Shambhu Ram who was running the business of commission agent under the name and style of M/s Shambhu Ram Vijay Kumar, M/s Jishu Trading Company, M/s Durga Trading Company and M/s Shambhu Ram and sons. Plaintiff-Tarsem Kumar is a close relative i.e. real brother of Rakesh Kumar. As Rakesh Kumar was not paying due price of the crop to the defendant and evading full payment of the price of crop, the defendant stopped selling his crop to the above firms and squared off his account after making full payment. Thereafter, he never visited the shop of said firm nor had any occasion to meet plaintiff as he had started selling his crop through Pawan Kumar proprietor of M/s Parkash Chand Pawan Kumar, Bhucho Mandi since October, 2001. The defendant alleged that when he was selling the crop to Rakesh Kumar partner of the above mentioned firms he might have deceptively obtained his thumb impressions on blank printed performa on the pretext of crediting agricultural produce sold by defendant to him. The defendant being a rustic and illiterate person and not conversant with the procedural wriggles, was duped and the plaintiff in connivance with Rakesh Kumar his brother fabricated the pronote and receipt. Another reason for fabricating the pronote and receipt as given in the written statement was the association of defendant with Gurmail Singh and Natha Singh who had strained relations with Rakesh Kumar and plaintiff due to protracted civil and criminal litigation with them had fabricated the pronote and receipt. It was alleged that the defendant was never in need of money. He had no business or other terms with the plaintiff nor had any dealing or concern with him. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to advance the alleged loan.

4. The plaintiff is an advocate by profession and in no manner could get himself involve in business of money lending on profit against the provisions of Advocates Act and Bar Council Rules. The defendant who was having his account with M/s Parkash Chand Pawan Kumar of Bhucho Mandi had no occasion to borrow money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff had deliberately avoided to mention his profession, business and status in the plaint. He had also failed to produce material documents i.e. account books, return of income tax etc. alongwith the suit. In nutshell the defendant denied taking of loan and execution of the pronote and receipt in favour of plaintiff.

5. Defendant-Sukhdev Singh also contested the claim of plaintiff on similar grounds as taken by defendant-Teja Singh.

6. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo recorded the observations while dismissing the suit, as follows:-

(i) Execution of pronotes and receipts stand proved.

(ii) The plea of defendants that pronotes dated 20.03.2003 were result of forgery, fabrication and impersonation, was not accepted.

(iii) The defendants had been able to prove that the pronotes and receipts were without consideration and