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

RSA-4966-2015 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 11.09.2025 Modan Singh ....Appellant VERSUS M/s Kumar Chand Janak Raj, through Janak Raj (deceased) through LRs ….Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Vishwjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), District Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by upholding the judgment and decree dated 11.08.20214 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹4,62,000/–, comprising ₹3,00,000/– being the principal amount and ₹1,62,000/– being the interest accrued thereon. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff-firm being a sole proprietorship concern had lent an amount of ₹3,00,000/– in cash to the defendant-Modan Singh on 10.03.2010 for his household purposes in the presence of witness Satpal. The defendant had agreed to pay interest on the said amount at the rate of 1.5% per month. It was further pleaded that the defendant executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on the same date in lieu of having received the suit amount and put his signatures on the said pronote and receipt in the presence of witnesses. However, despite repeated requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount, which necessitated the filing of the present suit.

3. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and contested the suit. The defendant submitted that the suit is not maintainable and is without any cause of action. It was further contended that the plaintiff is doing the work of money lending without obtaining the requisite license. The defendant further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also alleged that the plaintiff is not a sole proprietorship concern but an unregistered partnership firm, and therefore, the proprietor is not a proper person to file the present suit. It was specifically denied that the defendant had ever borrowed a sum of ₹3,00,000/– on 10.03.2010 or had executed any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged pronote and receipt were stated to be forged and fabricated documents. The defendant further alleged that the attesting witness of the pronote, namely Satpal, is the real brother of the plaintiff and earlier, on 04.06.2010, the said Satpal had issued a notice for recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 14.07.2008 for a sum of ₹4,00,000/– from the defendant, but no suit was filed on the basis of that pronote. When the limitation for filing the suit on the basis of the said pronote expired, the plaintiff, in collusion with his brother Satpal, forged the present pronote and receipt against the defendant. On these premises, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest from the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP

3. Whether no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff?

OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD

5. Relief.

5. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Satpal, attesting witness of the alleged pronote and receipt, as PW1. Janak Raj, sole proprietor of the plaintiff firm, appeared as PW2. Anil Kumar Gupta, handwriting and fingerprint expert, was examined as PW3. The plaintiff placed on record the original pronote and receipt dated 10.03.2010 as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, photocopy of the Rokar Bahi as Ex.P3, photocopies of the Bahi Khata for