IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

213 RSA-1010-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 08.08.2025 Shri Chand ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Lalman (deceased) through his LRs ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-8855-C-2025 Prayer in this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the accompanying restoration application.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 42 days in filing the accompanying restoration application is condoned.

CM-8856-C-2025 Prayer in this application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is for restoration of the main appeal which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.05.2025.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the main appeal is ordered to be restored at its original number and position.

4. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the main appeal is taken up on Board today itself for disposal.

RSA-1010-2018 (O&M)

Present second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of Rs.78,880/- (Rs.68,000/- as principal amount and interest @ 12% thereupon), has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that on 01.02.2008, defendant had taken Rs.68,000/- as loan and had executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff which was handed over to the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses. However, as defendant had failed to pay the amount on dated 20.07.2009, plaintiff had sent him a legal notice whereupon the defendant had contended that his signatures had been taken on the pronote when he was under the influence of liquor. With these pleadings, present Suit was filed by the plaintiff on 03.01.2015.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as the alleged pronote executed by the defendant was nowhere proven on record. It is submitted that it was the clear case of the defendant that the plaintiff had procured the said pronote and the signatures of the defendant on the said pronote, had been taken by the plaintiff by intoxicating the defendant by administering alcohol to the appellant. It was further submitted that even the receipt alleged issued by the plaintiff is not brought on record. Furthermore, the learned Courts below had erred in granting interest @ 12% p.a. Furthermore, it was the clear case of the defendant that plaintiff was involved in money lending without having any proper license in this regard, which is required as per law. Even this fact has been overlooked by learned Courts below. Even the signatures of the appellant could not be proved on pronote Ex.P1. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the defendant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in great detail.

5. I find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/defendant. It has firstly been submitted by the defendant that the plaintiff had procured signatures of the defendant on the pronote under the influence of liquor. From this admitted stance of the defendant, it can be inferred that defendant has admitted his signatures upon the pronote. Defendant had also simultaneously in a contradictory plea, disputed his signatures on the pronote and had alleged forgery. However, defendant had led no evidence to discharge his onus to prove forgery of his signatures by the plaintiff. Even signature of the defendant upon the note was proved from the evidence of PW3 Handwriting