RSA-3067-2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 RSA-3067-2023 Date of decision : 23.09.2025 Gurnam Singh (Deceased) through his LRs ...... Appellant versus Madan Lal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for the appellant. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. Defendant is in second appeal. 2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.7,45,000/- including principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- based upon a promissory note claimed to have been signed by the defendant. As per the plaintiff, the defendant availed a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from him and agreed to pay interest @ of 1.25% per month. 3. Suit was contested by the defendant. Defendant claimed that he used to sell his crops through plaintiff, who was working as a commission agent till the year 2007. There was a relationship of trust between the plaintiff and defendant. Taking advantage, plaintiff obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers on the pretext of J forms. The parties had a financial dispute in the year 2007. The same was settled in the presence of one Tara Chand son of Suraj Bhan. As per settlement, defendant paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the plaintiff in the presence of Tara Chand and a receipt was executed. Defendant denied having DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3067-2023 borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and claimed that the promissory note as well as receipt are result of forgery and are fabricated documents. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate? OPP 3. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether pronote and receipt in question is forged and fabricated document? OPD 5. Relief.” 5. Plaintiff in support of his plea examined Rajesh Kumar PW1 and Ram Gopal as PW2. Both the witnesses identified their signatures on promissory note and proved its due execution. 6. Defendant examined Tara Chand, who appeared as DW3. Receipt marked DX though was brought on record, but could not be proved in accordance with law. 7. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff having proved the execution of the promissory note and receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- signed by the defendant, the plaintiff was entitled to decree of recovery of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest. 8. Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. He relies upon document marked DX to submit that there was a settlement between the parties. In terms of settlement, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- and in lieu thereof, the receipt was executed by the plaintiff. 9. Mr. Attri is not in a position to dispute that the document ‘DX’ remained a marked document. It was neither tendered in evidence DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3067-2023 nor was proved in accordance with law. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the whole defence of the defendant hinges upon a document marked DX. Defendant have failed to prove the same. The financial transactions having been admitted and execution of promissory note proved, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 11. Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 23.09.2025 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2025.09.26 17:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document