JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh. J.(Oral) - Defendant/appellant-Nirmal Singh is in second appeal against the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for recovery filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the appellate court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that respondent/plaintiff-Ms. Surekha Jindal wife of Naresh Kumar filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- as principal and Rs.70,000/- as interest) on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 1.1.2001. 3. It was alleged by the plaintiff/respondent that defendant/appellant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her on 1.1.2001 on interest @ 2% per month by executing a pronote and receipt dated 1.1.2001. On the failure of the appellant/defendant to repay the loan amount alongwith interest she instituted the suit for recovery. 4. Upon notice, defendant/appellant filed written statement alleging therein that he had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that the alleged pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents. It was further alleged that defendant used to visit the shop of Naresh Kumar, husband of plaintiff, to sell his agricultural produce and in the course of their business the defendant had taken a sum of Rs.30,000/- from said Naresh Kumar which was repaid by him on 16.11.2009. It was also alleged that Naresh Kumar, husband of the plaintiff, used to take signatures of the defendant on blank/printed papers on the pretext of issuing “J” Form and he might have misused those papers in preparing the alleged pronote and receipt. 5. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. After hearing both sides and perusing the material/evidence available on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent which was further affirmed in appeal by the appellate court. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the execution of the alleged pronote and receipt has not been proved, which were forged and fabricated documents and as such the impugned judgements and decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that both the courts below have failed to appreciate that the execution of the alleged pronote and receipt has not been proved, which were forged and fabricated documents and as such the impugned judgements and decrees passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the impugned judgements and decrees, I find that no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 8. The learned trial court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, on the basis of material available on record has found that plaintiff while appearing as PW1 has reiterated the entire averments contained in the plaint which were further corroborated by PW2 Naresh Kumar, Scribe of the pronote and receipt dated 1.1.2001 (Ex.P4 and P5) in question as well as by PW3 Amit Kumar, witness of the pronote and receipt who categorically stated that the defendant had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- in his presence and had signed the pronote and receipt after understanding the contents thereof. It was further noticed by the trial court that defendant in his cross examination had admitted that his signatures were obtained fraudulently on blank/printed forms, however, a bare perusal of the pronote and receipt revealed that in fact the defendant had put his signatures on the revenue stamps and the same is a printed form and not blank papers as alleged. Still further, the learned trial court has kept in mind the legal position that “every negotiable instrument made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, ignored, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. I am in agreement with the observation of the trial court that this presumption is based upon a principle and not a mere technical provision. The learned trial court has recorded a categoric finding that the defendant/appellant has failed to disprove the existence of the consideration and that in the absence of disproving the existence of the consideration, the onus of proof of the legal presumption in favour of plaintiff cannot be shifted. 9. The learned trial court has recorded a categoric finding that the defendant/appellant has failed to disprove the existence of the consideration and that in the absence of disproving the existence of the consideration, the onus of proof of the legal presumption in favour of plaintiff cannot be shifted. 9. The learned appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant has noticed that defendant appellant could not bring any supportive evidence that his relations with the husband of the plaintiff were so strained in the past that it left no scope for his visiting plaintiff. 10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion, that appellant/defendant has miserably failed to produce any evidence on the basis of which courts below could ignore the pronote and receipt execution of which stands duly proved by way of oral as well as documentary evidence. 11. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. --------------