JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of the present appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 42-CA/13 of 2006 dated 09.11.2006 vide which, learned first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur in Civil Suit No. 37/1 of 2003 dated 30.08.2005. 2. This appeal was admitted on 30.11.2007 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether both the Courts below are justified in holding that appellant/defendant has not paid the decreetal amount before the filing of the suit." 3. Facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present case are that respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') on the ground that on 12.02.1998, defendant approached him and requested that he was in need of Rs. 50,000/- for his business of transportation and on his request, the plaintiff agreed to advance him a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and for the said purpose, the plaintiff issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- dated 12.02.1998, which money the defendant agreed to pay back along with interest @ 20% per annum till the entire amount was repaid. As per the plaintiff, the defendant had agreed to pay interest on the loan amount latest by 7th day of each month and also promised that he will pay the entire amount in lump sum after expiry of six months, failing which, the loan amount along with interest shall be recoverable from his moveable and immoveable property. A pronote to this effect was executed at Nahan on 12.02.1998 on a stamp paper of Rs. 10/- in the presence of one Shri Sarwan Kumar and Bhagel Singh. This pronote was duly attested by Notary Public, Nahan, namely Smt. Usha Aggarwal and the defendant was identified before the said Notary Public by Shri R.L. Garg, Advocate. Defendant issued a cheque dated 12.02.1998 for an amount of Rs. 55,000/- in favour of the plaintiff as security, but the same was subsequently cancelled by the defendant. The cheque issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was duly encashed by him. Defendant issued a cheque dated 12.02.1998 for an amount of Rs. 55,000/- in favour of the plaintiff as security, but the same was subsequently cancelled by the defendant. The cheque issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant was duly encashed by him. On 02.04.1998, defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the plaintiff vide cheque drawn upon State Bank of India, Nahan. On 03.02.2000, defendant executed one more pronote of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of previous pronote, in which he admitted having received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and having issued a cheque in favour of the plaintiff as security of the loan amount. This pronote was written at Paonta Sahib on 03.02.2000 in the presence of one Shri Sarwan Kumar and Ran Bhaj Sharma and was duly attested by Notary Public Shri Satish Gupta, Advocate. The plaintiff presented the said cheque in the State Bank of India, ADB Branch Paonta Sahib on 10.11.2000, but the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. He on various occasions requested the defendant to pay back the amount with interest which he had lent to the defendant, but the defendant avoided the payment of the said amount. The plaintiff in these circumstances issued a legal notice to the defendant which was not received by the defendant will-fully. Therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery along with interest. 4. In his written statement, the defendant denied the case of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff had taken various blank cheques from the defendant along with signatures on simple, judicial and stamp papers and some written papers and the same were misused by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the amount in fact pertained to an investment having been made in verbal partnership business of a vehicle in January 1998 and when the business could not incur profits, the plaintiff manipulated false evidence by taking benefit of his position of being in police department to fleece money from the defendant. Thus, he denied the claim of the plaintiff. 5. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the case as put forth in the plaint and denied the factum of any partnership business having been entered into by him with the defendant or that the plaintiff was in possession of blank cheques etc. of the defendant which were misused by him. 6. Thus, he denied the claim of the plaintiff. 5. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the case as put forth in the plaint and denied the factum of any partnership business having been entered into by him with the defendant or that the plaintiff was in possession of blank cheques etc. of the defendant which were misused by him. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has taken various blank cheques from defendant and is misusing the same? 5. Relief. 7. On the basis of evidence produced on record by the respective parties, the following findings were returned on the said issues by the learned trial Court: Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Relief: Suit of plaintiff is decreed as per operative part of judgment. 8. Thus, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the following terms: "It is ordered that suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- along with costs and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing this suit till the realisation of entire decreetal amout." 9. It was held by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff was able to prove that he had lent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant by cheque which was duly withdrawn by him and the plaintiff also proved the issuance of two promotes as well as cheques by the defendant in his favour in the presence of witnesses which were duly attested by the Notaries. Learned trial Court further held that the defendant in fact in his deposition had admitted his signatures on the pronote and other documents, but his plea was that these signatures were obtained from him on blank papers. Learned trial Court further held that the defendant in fact in his deposition had admitted his signatures on the pronote and other documents, but his plea was that these signatures were obtained from him on blank papers. Learned trial Court further held that this contention of the defendant that he had not taken any money from the plaintiff and the said monetary transaction was with regard to a partnership business and further there were blank cheques and blank documents of his with the plaintiff which were being misused by the plaintiff, was not substantiated by the defendant by placing any cogent and trustworthy material on record. On the other hand, learned trial Court held that plaintiff by leading his own evidence has duly proved the execution of two promotes Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/D as well as cheques Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/E. PW-5 Usha Aggarwal and PW-6 Sarvan Kumar have also proved the execution of pronote Ex. PW2/A. Learned trial Court further held that the pronote dated 03.02.2000 Ex. PW2/D also stood proved by witness Sarvan Kumar as well as Notary Public, who attested the same, i.e. PW-3 S.K. Gupta, Advocate. Learned trial Court further held that it cannot be assumed that all the persons were deposing against the defendant as he was trying to portray and on the basis of material on record it held that the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- along-with costs and future interest @ 6% per annum. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur vide judgment dated 09.11.2006. Learned Appellate Court held that though the defendant denied the plaintiff's case in totality as was evident from the written statement, but at the same time, it was also his case that various blank cheques had been signed by him which were in possession of the plaintiff, which were misused by him. Learned appellate Court held that defendant in fact had acknowledged receiving an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff, though according to him, it was not a loan received by him from the plaintiff, but it was in lieu of a partnership deed. Learned appellate Court held that defendant in fact had acknowledged receiving an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff, though according to him, it was not a loan received by him from the plaintiff, but it was in lieu of a partnership deed. Learned Appellate Court further held that there was no infirmity with the findings which were returned by the learned trial Court with regard to the execution of two promotes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff which stood duly proved on record. Accordingly, it held that the plaintiff's cause for recovery of the suit amount was duly substantiated on record by proving the execution of two promotes Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/D as well as by proving the issuance of cheques Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/E and thus, it held that no fault could be traced with the judgment passed by the learned trial Court whereby it held the plaintiff to be entitled to recover the decreetal amount. This judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court has been challenged by way of present appeal. 11. Mr. S.D. Gill, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the learned Courts below have erred in not appreciating that no amount as was being claimed by the plaintiff by way of filing of the suit was due to him from the defendant as this liability stood discharged by the defendant even before the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Further, according to Mr. Gill, it was for this reason that the defendant had taken a specific stand in his written statement that no amount in fact was due towards the plaintiff as was being claimed by him and the suit had been filed by misusing the blank cheques and other blank documents which were available with the plaintiff which contained the signatures of the defendant. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as perused the records of the case and the judgment passed by both the learned Courts below. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the scope of interference by this Court while exercising its power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. 13. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the scope of interference by this Court while exercising its power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agarawal (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 288 while relying upon its previous judgments has held that High Court in second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. It further held that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Similarly, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 423: "16. At the outset, we would like to point out that the findings on facts by the Lower Appellate Court as a final Court on facts, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. That being the position, were] are of the view that the High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence and without finding that the conclusions reached by the Lower Appellate Court were not based on the evidence, reversed the conclusions on facts on the ground that the view taken by it was also a possible view n the facts. The High Court, it is well settled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100, C.P.C., cannot reverse the findings of the Lower Appellate Court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the Lower Appellate Court another view was possible." 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, in my considered view, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. Coming to the facts of the present case, in my considered view, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact what is being argued in the present appeal is totally contrary to the stand which has been taken by the defendant in his written statement as well as in the grounds of appeal, on the basis of which, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was challenged before the learned first Appellate Court. Before the learned trial Court the stand of the defendant was that he had not received any money from the plaintiff as loan and nothing was due from him to the plaintiff and alleged promotes and cheques issued by him were in fact never issued and these were the result of misuse of blank cheques and blank papers and documents of his which were with the plaintiff. It was not his case in the written statement that though he had received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff, but he had discharged his liability before the suit was filed. Further, there is no issue framed by the learned trial Court in this regard and rightly so because this in fact was never the case of the defendant before the learned trial Court. Similarly, even before the learned Appellate Court, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was challenged on the ground that the case of the plaintiff was based on concoction and fabrication and the suit was hopelessly time barred. Not only this, a perusal of the evidence placed on record by the defendant demonstrates that it is nowhere suggested in the said evidence that though the defendant had received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff, however, the said amount was duly paid back by him to the plaintiff. 17. Therefore, keeping in view the said facts, in my considered view, the defendant had neither set up any case to the effect that decreetal amount already stood satisfied by him even before the suit was filed nor there is any material placed on record by him from which this could be inferred. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs.