Puran Chand vs Diwakar Dutt Modgil

Surjit Singh, J.—Heard and gone through the record.

A suit, based on a pronote, was filed against the appellant-defendant for recovery of money mentioned in the pronote, together with interest. It was stated that the appellant-defendant had purchased building material from the respondent-plaintiff, on credit, and when he could not pay the price, he executed a pronote Ext. PW1/A. Appellant-defendant stated that his signatures had been obtained on revenue stamps and later on those stamps were affixed on the pronote and the receipt.

Trial Court after, recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant-defendant had executed the pronote and drew presumption that it was executed for consideration. Consequently, suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by the defendant before the District Judge stands dismissed, vide impugned judgment and decree. Appellant-defendant has now filed this second appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that signatures of the appellant had been obtained on revenue stamps and those stamps were affixed on the forms of pronote and the receipt. I have seen the pronote and the receipt Ext. PW1/A. Signature of the appellant appears on the pronote and a small portion of it (signature) appears on the pronote and the receipt outside the edges of revenue stamps, which fact give a complete lie to the submission.

Another submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel is that the bills, against which building material was supplied, have not been produced, therefore, the trial Court and the first appellate Court were not justified in drawing statutory presumption that the pronote was executed for consideration. This submission is also devoid of merit. Once the signature of the appellant-defendant is proved on the pronote and the receipt and his explanation that his signature had been obtained only on revenue stamps has been found to be untrue, there should be no hitch in drawing the statutory presumption. Otherwise also, why should have the appellant-defendant put his signatures on revenue stamps not affixed on any paper and given those signed stamps to the respondent-plaintiff. Thus, no question of law, muchless substantial question of law, arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.