IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 77 of 2006 (O&M)

Reserved on : 01.05.2026 Pronounced on : 08.05.2026 Bhura Singh …..Appellant versus Balbir Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate, (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant.

Ms. Khusbu Sharma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the respondents.

****

RAMESH KUMARI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2005 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bathinda whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) against the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff) for recovery for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs along with interest to be charged at the rate of 12% per annum from 25.05.2001 till passing of the judgment and decree by the learned trial Court i.e. 01.09.2005 and future interest on the decretal amount from the date of passing of the decree till realization of the actual decretal amount had been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo had been upheld.

2. The facts which form backdrop of the suit are that defendant-Bhura Singh obtained a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as loan from the plaintiff Balbir Singh on 25.05.2001 and in lieu thereof he had executed a pronote and receipt (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) respectively of even date in favour of the plaintiff with promise to repay the same on demand together with interest at the rate of 2% per month. The defendant did not repay even a single penny either towards principal or interest and hence the plaintiff was constrained to file the civil suit before the Civil Court.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and also raised preliminary objections that plaintiff had no locus-standi and cause of action to file the civil suit and the pronote and receipts are forged and fabricated documents. The defendant never executed the same as no consideration was paid to him.

4. Based on the pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 03.01.2004:-

1) Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.05.2001 and executed a pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff on that date? OPP

2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to recover any interest on the borrowed amount, if so at what rate? OPP.

3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.3,10,000/- from the defendant? OPP

4) Whether suit of the plaintiff is within time? OPP

5) Whether the alleged pronote and receipt are false, forged, fabricated and are without consideration? OPD.

6) Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

7) Relief.

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined scribe, Sandeep Singla as PW1, attesting witness Varinder Kumar as PW2 of the pronote and receipt. Plaintiff Balbir Singh himself stepped into the witness box as PW3 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW3/A. On the other hand, the defendant examined his nephew Paramjeet Singh as DW1 besides examining himself as DW2.

6. After going through the pleadings and the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 01.09.2005 decreed the suit with costs to the effect that:

“the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest to be charged @ 12% per annum from 25.05.2001 till today and he is also entitled to recover future interest on the decretal amount from today onwards till the actual realization of the decretal amount”.

7. Against the aforesaid impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2005 passed by the learned trial Court, the first appeal filed before the First Appellate Court by the defendant had been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 06.12.2005.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the reco