IMPORTANT POINT
Pronote – Execution of – Mere fact that the scribe of pronote did not sign the pronote and agreement would not make any difference.

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.

The defendant has filed this regular second appeal against the judgments of the Courts below, whereby, the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 2,54,000/- (Rupees two lacs principal amount and Rs. 54000/- as interest) has been decreed.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit with the averment that the plaintiff and defendant were residents of village Ahmedpur and were known to each other. On 13.3.2007, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from the plaintiff for urgent need. He agreed to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of 0.75 paisa per month till repayment. The defendant executed a pronote and receipt on 13.3.2007 in the presence of witnesses Satnam Chand son of Chandi Ram, Charan Dass son of Bulla Ram, Bhajan Lal son of Bhinder and Surender Kumar son of Kashmir Chand. The pronote and receipt was scribed by Deen Dayal Deed Writer. The defendant had agreed to repay the amount on demand. However, despite the plaintiff demanding the amount, the defendant was refusing to make payment on one pretext or the other. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant on the other hand pleaded that he had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. It was his case that the defendant being a co-villager of the plaintiff and his son Des Raj had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from Des Raj. At that time, Des Raj had procured the signatures of the defendant on many blank plain papers, stamp papers and printed forms to be used as security for repayment of the borrowed amount. However, Des Raj misused those signed papers and manipulated a sale agreement in his favour. He filed a civil suit for possession of land of defendant through specific performance of agreement to sell. The said civil suit titled as Des Raj v. Kashmiri Lal was decided by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sirsa vide judgment dated 26.5.2012 and alternative relief for refund of earnest money had been granted. After filing that suit, Des Raj got the present suit filed my manipulating the pronote and receipt and the blank printed forms signed by the defendant.

4. To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-2, the scribe Deen Dayal was examined as PW-1 and attesting witness Satnam Chand as PW-3. The defendant appeared as DW-1. He also examined Bhajan Lal as DW2 who corroborated his version.

5. Learned Trial Court noted that the plaintiff had placed on record the pronote and receipt dated 13.3.2007 as Ex.P1 and Ex. P2. Deen Dayal, the scribe appearing as PW1 stated that Ex.P1 and Ex. P2 had been scribed by him and were entered at Sr. No.184 in his register on 13.3.2007. He stated that the pronote had been scribed by him on the asking of defendant Kashmir Chand. Interest was also agreed to be paid at the rate of 0.75 paise per month. Ex.P1 was read over and explained to the witnesses who then appended their signatures. PW3 Satnam Chand one of the attesting witnesses also stated that the pronote was scribed by Deen Dayal, it was read over and explained to defendant Kashmir Chand in his presence and the presence of other witnesses i.e. Bhajan Lal and Surender Kumar.

6. The Trial Court noted that witness Surender Kumar son of Kashmir Chand (defendant) had endorsed on the pronote in his hand that "Mere Sahmane mere pitaji ne 2 lak nakad vasul pai" and had also appended his signatures dated 13.3.2007. The defendant however, in his evidence, stated that he was not aware whether Surender Kumar was his son. He however stated that Bhajan Lal was his son and he identified his signatures on the receipt Ex.P2. The learned Trial Court held that the pronote and the receipt were duly proved.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff was doing the business of money lender without having obtained licence under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1934, and hence the suit was barred, was rejected by holding that there was nothing on the file to indicate that he was regularly in the business of money le