IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-2811-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 10.09.2025 Sukhdev Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Ajit Singh ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. N.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant– appellant against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, i.e the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga and the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Moga, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff–respondent instituted a suit for recovery of ₹13,60,000/– comprising of ₹10,00,000/– as principal amount and ₹3,60,000/– as interest at the rate of 12% per annum against the defendant–appellant. It was pleaded that the defendant had borrowed a sum of ₹10,00,000/– from the plaintiff on 07.05.2019, for which a pronote and receipt were duly executed at Moga. The pronote and receipt bore the signatures of the defendant, were attested by a Notary Public and witnessed by Sukhdev Singh son of Jangir Singh and Lakhvir Singh son of Jeet Singh, residents of village Talwandi Bhangerian, District Moga. It was agreed that the defendant would repay the amount along with interest at the rate of 1½% per mensum.

3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the pronote and receipt in question were forged and fabricated and without consideration. The defendant pleaded that he is a small farmer residing abroad with his family and that on 29.07.2013 he had borrowed ₹5,00,000/– from the plaintiff against a pronote and receipt. Thereafter, the same was renewed on 21.07.2016 for ₹6,80,000/–. At that time, the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on another pronote and receipt paper by pasting his photographs thereon on the pretext that as per new rules of Punjab a copy of the same had to be kept as proof. The defendant pleaded that the said paper was signed by him believing that the same might be required, and the plaintiff assured him that it would not be misused. The further stand taken was that in the first week of May 2019, the defendant repaid the entire amount of ₹6,80,000/– along with interest to the plaintiff at the District Courts Complex, Moga, whereupon the plaintiff returned the original pronotes and receipts dated 29.07.2013 and 21.07.2016. At that time the plaintiff also obtained his signatures in the register of an advocate as proof of return of the amount. The defendant demanded return of the blank signed pronote and receipt but the plaintiff stated that the same was misplaced and would be returned later. It was alleged that by misusing the said blank paper, the plaintiff has fabricated the pronote and receipt dated 07.05.2019 to falsely claim a sum of ₹10,00,000/– and to grab a small piece of land belonging to the defendant.

4. On the basis of pleadings following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery, on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 07.05.2019, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the alleged pronote and receipt is without consideration and is forged and fabricated document? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct?

OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the present suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Relief.

5. In his evidence the plaintiff examined Sukhdev Singh S/o Jangir Singh (attesting witness of pronote and receipt in question) as PW-1, Lakhvir Singh S/o Jeet Singh (attesting witness of pronote and receipt in question) as PW-2 and himself PW-3. The Plaintiff has proved on record original pronote and receipt in question a