RSA-1154-1998 (O IN THE 211 Lakhvir Singh Dhara Singh CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Mr. for t Mr. Mr. for t *** AMARINDER S 1. The against the judg Appellate Court defendant, well learned trial Cou set aside, resultin 2. For manner in which 3. In b recovery on the b defendant had bo the said amount 98 (O&M) -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH RSA Dat Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the respondent. *** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been prefe judgment and decree dated 23.01.1 Court whereby while allowing app well-reasoned judgment and decree d al Court decreeing the suit for recover esulting into dismissal of the suit. For the sake of convenience, the pa which they were before the learned tria In brief, the facts are that the pla n the basis of a pronote and receipt dat had borrowed a sum of ₹80,000/- fro ount along with interest @2% per mo NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH RSA-1154-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision:12.01.2026 ... Appellant ... Respondent MARINDER SINGH GREWAL te for RAL) preferred by the appellant–plaintiff 3.01.1998 passed by the learned 1 appeal filed by the respondent ecree dated 14.08.1995 passed by the ecovery filed by the plaintiff has been the parties are being described in the rial Court. he plaintiff had instituted a suit for ipt dated 22.10.1991, alleging that the from him and had agreed to repay per month. It was further pleaded that laintiff 1st ndent- by the s been in the uit for hat the repay ed that PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O although the def plaintiff, of his only. It was aver either the princip suit for recovery ₹14,400/- as inter 4. Upo statement through and pleading tha he executed any defendant had no Patwari, and that Muktsar, thereby defendant further there was cutting “1981” was alt inadmissible. Th documents were 5. By f the plaint and con the pronote was figure “8”, the fi receipt the date explanation, the p 98 (O&M) -2- he defendant had agreed to pay int f his own volition, restricted his clai s averred that despite repeated demand rincipal amount or the interest, compe covery of ₹94,400/, comprising ₹80, as interest. Upon notice of the suit, the defenda through his counsel, raising a categoric ng that he had never borrowed any am d any pronote or receipt dated 22.10 had no dealings with the plaintiff, w d that the commission agent of the de eby denying the existence of any d further objected to the genuineness of cutting and overwriting in the year co as altered to “1991”, rendering t The execution of the pronote an were alleged to be forged, thus, dismi By filing replication, the plaintiff re nd controverted the pleas raised by th e was a printed one bearing the year “ , the figure “9” was written to make t date was clearly mentioned as 22.1 n, the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the ay interest at the aforesaid rate, the is claim to interest @1% per month emands, the defendant failed to repay compelling the plaintiff to institute th ₹80,000/- as principal amount and efendant appeared and filed a written tegorical denial of the plaintiff’s claim any amount from the plaintiff nor had 22.10.1991. It was asserted that the tiff, who was stated to be a Revenue the defendant was one Tek Chand of any debtor–creditor relationship. The ess of the pronote on the ground that ear column whereby the printed year ring the document suspicious and ote and receipt was denied and the dismissal of the suit was prayed for. ntiff reiterated the averments made in by the defendant. It was clarified that year “1981” and that after cutting the ake the year “1991”, whereas on the as 22.10.1991. On the basis of such ing the suit. te, the month repay ute the nt and ritten claim or had at the venue and of p. The d that d year s and nd the . ade in ed that ng the on the f such PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O 6. From following issues: (1) (2) 7. In o examined Rosha Dass as PW-3, a sought to prove t dated 22.10.1991 other hand, the 2 in support of h stand of denial receipt and the pa 8. On a execution of the proved and that t of the Negotiabl cutting and over favour of the plai 9. Agg before the 1st Ap the judgment and 98 (O&M) -3- From the pleadings of the parties, th issues: (1) Whether the defendant execute 22.10.1991 in favour of the pla loan? (2) Relief. In order to prove their case, the plai Roshan Lal as PW-2, the scribe of th 3, an attesting witness. Through t rove the execution of the pronote (Ex 0.1991, as well as the passing of con , the defendant appeared as DW-1 and rt of his defence. Through his eviden enial of the alleged loan transaction, the passing of any consideration. On appreciation of the evidence, the of the pronote (Ex.P-1) and receipt (E that the defendant failed to rebut the gotiable Instruments Act regarding c d overwriting was rejected and, accor he plaintiff for ₹94,400/- with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment, th Appellate Court, which was allow ent and decree passed by the learned ties, the learned trial Court framed the ecuted the pronote and receipt dated e plaintiff on receipt of ₹80,000/- as e plaintiff appeared as PW-1. He also of the pronote and receipt and Ishar ough the said witnesses, the plaintiff te (Ex.P-1) and receipt (Ex.P-2), both of consideration thereunder. On the 1 and examined Partap Singh as DW evidence, the defendant reiterated his action, execution of the pronote and ce, the learned trial Court held that the eipt (Ex.P-2) dated 22.10.1991 stood ut the presumption under Section 118 ding consideration. The objection of accordingly, the suit was decreed in ent, the defendant preferred an appeal allowed, resulting in setting aside of arned trial Court. The present regular ed the ated as e also Ishar aintiff ), both n the s DW- ed his te and at the stood n 118 ion of eed in appeal ide of egular PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O second appeal h judgment and dec 10. Lear Appellate Court i Court by ignoring Instruments Act. receipt (Ex.P-2) d signatures expre respect to execut and overwriting learned trial Co financial capacit Account No.760 balance of ₹63, withdrawal of advance the loan carved out in fa Instruments Act. disbelieved the d on the written sta 1st Appellate Co decree passed b judgment and dec 11. Per judgment and de 98 (O&M) -4- peal has been filed by the appellan nd decree passed by the learned 1st Ap Learned counsel for the appellant Court illegally reversed a well-reasone noring the statutory presumption unde s Act. It is submitted that the executi ) dated 22.10.1991 stood proved. expressly nor pleaded fraud, coerc execution of the pronote and receipt riting in the pronote was duly explain ial Court. It is further argued that capacity was wholly erroneous, as 7600 maintained with Punjab and ₹63,266/- as on 25.09.1991, ₹1,50 l of ₹17,000/- on 22.10.1991, clearl e loan. The defendant had completely t in favour of the plaintiff under S s Act. It was also submitted that the the defendant, who went to the exten tten statement and vakalatnama, a mate te Court. On these grounds, it was sed by the learned 1st Appellate Co nd decree of the learned trial Court be Per contra, learned counsel for nd decree dated 23.01.1998 passed by pellant-plaintiff challenging the said Appellate Court. pellant contends that the learned 1 easoned judgment of the learned Trial n under Section 118 of the Negotiable xecution of the pronote (Ex.P-1) and oved. The defendant never denied his coercion or misrepresentation with ceipt. The objection regarding cutting explained and rightly accepted by the that the finding regarding lack of s, as the plaintiff’s Savings Bank b and Sind Bank, Muktsar showed a ₹1,50,266/- as on 21.10.1991, and clearly establishing his capacity to pletely failed to rebut the presumption nder Section 118 of the Negotiable hat the learned trial Court had rightly extent of denying his own signatures a material fact ignored by the learned it was prayed that the judgment and ate Court be set aside and that the urt be restored. l for the respondent supports the sed by the learned 1st Appellate Court e said 1st Trial tiable 1) and ied his with utting by the ck of Bank wed a , and ity to ption tiable rightly atures earned nt and at the the Court PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O and contends th learned trial Cou prove the passin statutory presum stood duly rebutt by a regular deed the learned 1st issue with respec seriously prejud substantial questi 12. Hav the record with th plaintiff proved h scribe and the att pronote (Ex.P-1) such evidence, r executed and tha based on evidenc 13. Onc presumption und automatically attr “11 cont (a) 98 (O&M) -5- that the judgment and decree da al Court was rightly set aside. It is cont passing of consideration and his fi resumption under Section 118 of th rebutted. It is further argued that the p ar deed writer but by a munim of one Appellate Court has rightly held respect to passing of consideration in prejudiced the merits of the case. question of law arises and thus, the in Having heard learned counsel for t with their able assistance, this Court is oved his case by stepping into the wit the attesting witness, who categoricall 1) and receipt (Ex.P-2). The Tri nce, returned a clear finding that the nd that the defendant failed to dislodge vidence and were neither perverse nor Once execution of the pronote n under Section 118(a) of the Negoti lly attracted. Section 118(a) reads as u 118. Presumptions as to negot contrary is proved, the following pre (a) of consideration:—that every n or drawn for consideration, an when it has been accepted, indo dated 14.08.1995 passed by the contended that the plaintiff failed to his financial capacity, and that the of the Negotiable Instruments Act the pronote (Ex.P1) was not scribed of one firm at Muktsar. Furthermore, y held that non-framing of a specifi tion in lieu of alleged pronote (Ex.P1 case. It is also submitted that no instant appeal deserves dismissal. l for the parties and upon perusal of ourt is of the considered view that the the witness box and by examining the orically supported the execution of the he Trial Court, upon appreciation of at the pronote and receipt were duly islodge the same. These findings were se nor based on conjectures. onote stood proved, the statutory egotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was ds as under: egotiable instruments.—Until the g presumptions shall be made:— ry negotiable instrument was made n, and that every such instrument, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, y the iled to at the ts Act cribed rmore, ecific x.P1) no issal. sal of he ng the of the ion of e duly s were tutory 1 was the ade ent, ed, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O 14. The existence of cons presumption by insufficient in la neither produced rebut the presum meet the legal st fell into a serious and by shifting consideration and The learned 1st speculative doub and the fact tha framing of speci alleged pronote ( of the defence o provisions of Se rebutted. 15. In Supreme Court admitted or prov Instruments Act burden thereafte 98 (O&M) -6- was accepted, indorsed, ne consideration; The effect of aforesaid provision is t f consideration and the burden shifts u n by leading cogent evidence. Mere t in law to rebut this presumption. In duced any documentary evidence nor resumption and confined his defence egal standard of rebuttal. The learned serious error by overlooking the statut ifting the burden back upon the pl ion and financial capacity. Such an app Appellate Court gave undue weig doubts, while completely ignoring t ct that the defendant had failed to f specific issue with respect to passi note (Ex.P1), in the opinion of this Co ence once presumption carved out in of Section 118 of the Negotiable Kapil Kumar v. Raj Kumar (20 Court held that once the execution r proved, the presumption under Se s Act arises that the instrument was e reafter shifts upon the defendant to reb negotiated or transferred for ion is that the Court must presume the shifts upon the defendant to rebut such Mere denial or raising of doubts is on. In the present case, the defendant ce nor examined any expert witness to efence to bald denial, which does not learned 1st Appellate Court, however, statutory mandate of Section 118 (a) the plaintiff to independently prove an approach is contrary to settled law. e weight to minor inconsistencies and ring the binding presumption of law d to rebut the same and thus, non passing of consideration in lieu of this Court, does not prejudice the case out in favour of the plaintiff as per tiable Instruments Act has not been (2022) 10 SCC 281, the Hon’ble ution of a negotiable instrument is er Section 118(a) of the Negotiable t was executed for consideration. The t to rebut the presumption by raising a for e the t such bts is endant ess to es not ever, (a) prove d law. es and of law , non- ieu of e case as per t been on’ble ent is tiable n. The ising a PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O probable defence sufficient to reb Singh, RSA No 19.03.2025, it ha statutory presum comes into oper consideration un Similarly, in Vik 29.08.2025, this rebut the presum that minor discre in Hanuman Pa 11.01.2024, this Negotiable Instru pronote is proved 16. The pronote (Ex.P1) w ground is not su document has be on record to disp 17. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (2016 (2019) 17 SCC 7 Singh (dead) thr 98 (O&M) -7- efence, and mere denial of considera to rebut the statutory presumption. No. 3848 of 2013 & RSA No , it has been held that once executi resumption under Section 118 of th operation and the plaintiff is not re ion unless the defendant rebuts the pr Vikramjeet v. Parkash Chand, RSA this Court held that bald denial by resumption under Section 118 of the discrepancies cannot dislodge the sta n Parshad v. Jitender Kumar, RSA this Court reiterated that the presum Instruments Act is a statutory mandat proved, the onus lies upon the defenda The argument of learned counsel for x.P1) was not scribed by a regular dee not sufficient to discard the docume has been sufficiently proved and no co o disprove the same. In view of the judgments passed by i (Dead) through Legal Representa 2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead ) through LRs and others (2023) SC sideration or bald averments are not tion. In Sukhpal Singh v. Darshan No. 4869 of 2016, decided on xecution of a pronote is proved, the of the Negotiable Instruments Act not required to independently prove the presumption by cogent evidence. , RSA No. 2986 of 2025, decided on ial by the defendant is insufficient to f the Negotiable Instruments Act and the statutory presumption. Likewise, RSA No. 2568 of 2019, decided on presumption under Section 118 of the andate and that once execution of the efendant to disprove consideration. sel for the respondent that the allege lar deed writer has no force, as such a ocument when the execution of the no cogent evidence has been brought sed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in entatives and others Vs. Chandrika ur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan 3) SCC Online SC 875, questions of re not shan on d, the ts Act prove dence. d on ient to and ewise, d on of the of the lleged such a of the rought ourt in rika thers aran ons of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1154-1998 (O law are not req Haryana High C Section 41 of the 18. As a the judgment and Court and the sa dated 14.08.1995 second appeal is 19. Pen January 12, 202 Pankaj* 98 (O&M) -8- ot required to be framed in second igh Court whose jurisdiction is ci of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above, this Court ent and decree dated 23.01.1998 pass the same is hereby set aside. Result 8.1995 passed by the learned trial Co eal is allowed. Decree sheet be prepar Pending application(s), if any, shall (AMARIN 2, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable econd appeal before the Punjab an is circumscribed by provisions of Court finds illegality and infirmity in 8 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Resultantly, the judgment and decree ial Court stands restored. The regular prepared accordingly. , shall also stand disposed of. ARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No b and ns of ity in ellate decree egular PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.01.16 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh