KAPIL KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 5/8/2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1727 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendant and has set aside the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs.1,36,550.00 the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant herein - original plaintiff instituted the suit against the respondent - original defendant for recovery of Rs.1.00 lakh. It was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh from him on 29/6/2007 and has also executed a pro-note (exhibit P1) and receipt (exhibit P2) in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant denied the execution of pro-note and took the stand that no loan was taken by the defendant and in fact the transaction was in between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant had paid the whole amount borrowed by him from the father of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant -original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has erred in upsetting and/or quashing the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below on execution ofthe pro-note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, in exercise of powers under Sec. 100 of CPC.