##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

RSA-1563-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.05.2026

Abhay Singh

. . . . Appellant

Vs.

Ram Kumar

. . . . Respondent

****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

****

Present: - Ms. Deepika, Advocate, for

Mr.Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-5705-C-2023

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

for condonation of delay of 35 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed

and the delay of 35days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA-1563-2023 (O&M)

3. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the

defendant-appellant assailing the concurrent judgments & decrees passed by

the learned Courts below, whereby the suit for recovery instituted by the

plaintiff-respondent on the basis of pronote and receipt has been decreed.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral as well as

documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit for recovery of

₹4,07,500/- alongwith interest vide judgment & decree dated 28.11.2017. The

first Appellate Court has affirmed the said findings on 10.05.2022 and dismissed

the appeal preferred by the defendant. Aggrieved there-against, the defendant

has approached this Court by way of the present second appeal.

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.13 14:57

I agree to specified portions of

this document

Chandigarh

RSA-1563-2023 2026:PHHC:074458

5. Briefly noticed, the case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had

borrowed an amount of ₹2,50,000/- on 30.01.2014 and executed a pronote and

receipt in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attesting witnesses with an

agreement to pay interest @ 2% per month. Despite repeated requests and

service of legal notice, the amount was not repaid, compelling the plaintiff to

institute the suit for recovery.

6. The defendant contested the suit primarily on the plea that the

pronote and receipt were not executed towards any loan transaction but were

allegedly obtained as security during settlement talks in relation to certain

criminal proceedings between the parties. It was further alleged that the

documents were procured by fraud and misrepresentation and that the date

had subsequently been inserted therein.

7. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and, upon

consideration of the evidence led by both parties, returned a categorical finding

that execution of the pronote and receipt stood duly proved by the plaintiff

through the testimony of attesting witness Vikram Singh as well as the plaintiff

himself. The Court further held that the defendant failed to substantiate his

plea of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation by any cogent evidence.

Resultantly, the suit was decreed. Appellate court has concurrent with these

findings.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued

that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the pronote and

receipt were never executed against any loan transaction and were merely

obtained during compromise negotiations in criminal litigation. It is contended

that the documents were undated and the plaintiff subsequently manipulated

the same. It is further argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below

are perverse and based upon misreading of evidence.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

record with his assistance.

10. At the outset, it deserves notice that both the Courts below have

concurrently held that execution of pronote and receipt by the defendant stood

VIVEK PAHWA

2026.05.13 14:57

I agree to specified portions of Page 2 of 4

this document

Chandigarh

RSA-1563-2023 2026:PHHC:074458

proved on record. The attesting witness examined by the plaintiff specifically

identified the signatures of the defendant on the pronote and receipt. The

plaintiff also entered the witness box and supported the case set up in the

plaint. Nothing substantial could be elicited during their cross-examination so

as to discredit their testimony.

1