The execution of promissory notes requires sufficient evidentiary support, and procedural irregularities do not automatically invalidate proceedings if they do not cause prejudice.

Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

CM No. 6103-C of 2022

Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the applicant-appellant, is for restoration of the main appeal, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.08.2022.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and main appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number.

Registry to do the needful.

On the oral request of learned counsel for the appellant, the main case is taken on board today itself.

RSA No. 1404 of 2019 (O&M)

CM Nos. 3638-39-C of 2019

Prayer in the present two applications (i) CM No. 3638-C of 2019 is for condonation of delay of 326 days in re-filing the appeal; and (ii) CM No. 3639-C of 2019 for condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons set out in the applications which make out sufficient cause and also duly supported by the affidavit(s), the same are allowed. The delay as occurred respectively in re-filing & filing the appeal is condoned.

MAIN APPEAL

1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments & decrees dated 06.02.2017 & 10.08.2017 passed by learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court, respectively, whereby a suit for recovery, filed by the respondent-plaintiff (Pritam Singh) was decreed, and the first appeal filed by the appellant-defendant (Chanan Singh) was dismissed.

2. Briefly put the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,70,000/- (principal + interest) against the appellant-defendant based on pronote as well as receipt dated 06.05.2012, while stating that the appellant-defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff, which was payable alongwith interest @ 1.5% per month.

3. Upon notice, the appellant-defendant appeared and submitted that the pronote and receipt were prepared at the instance of respondent-plaintiff in connivance with the marginal witnesses and no such valid document was ever executed between the parties. It was further stated that no consideration was received in pursuance thereof by the appellant-defendant and thus, prayed for dismissal of suit.

4. After appreciating the evidence on record as well as after hearing learned counsel for the parties, Trial Court, vide judgment & decree dated 06.02.2017, decreed the suit of plaintiff to the following effect:-

“ISSUE NO.6 RELIEF

19. In view of my above discussion and findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with costs. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.3,85,000/- from the defendant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of execution of the pronote and receipt i.e. 6.5.2012 till the date of realization of actual amount (as the interest claimed by the plaintiff is highly exorbitant and penal in nature). “

5. Dissatisfied with the judgment & decree dated 06.02.2017 passed by the trial Court, the defendant-appellant filed first appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment dated 10.08.2017.

6. Impugning the aforementioned judgments & decrees dated 06.02.2017 & 10.08.2017 passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant (Chanan Singh) submits that the pronote or the receipt in question were never proved on record. In support, he points out that the report of handwriting expert (PW-3) could not have been relied upon for the purpose of proving the execution of pronote in question as he was neither appointed under the orders of the Court nor he gave any opinion about the handwriting or even about the pens used while execution of the said do