1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 234 of 2009. Date of Decision: 14.1.2009 *** Anil Kumar Gupta .. Appellant VS. Chander Mohan Chawla .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for recovery, the defendant-appellant has preferred this regular second appeal wherein he has laid challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. It is apparent that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for recovery against the defendant-appellant for an amount of Rs.31,200/- (Rs.20,000/- as principal amount plus interest thereupon to the tune of Rs.11,200/-) while relying upon the receipt and pronote dated 30.8.1997 (Ex.P1 and P.2 respectively) whereby the defendant took a loan from him. From the facts it emerges out that there is no dispute to the fact by the defendant that the signatures appearing thereon were not those of him. The Courts below while relying upon the testimonies of plaintiff(PW1) and attesting witness Devinder Kumar (PW2), coupled with Ex.P3 i.e. the legal notice, concurrently held the due execution of receipt and pronote by the appellant against the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- which he failed to pay to the plaintiff despite due notice. Although the stand of the defendant was that the above-said pronote and receipt are forged one and an attempt was made by him to deviate from the execution of the same by putting forth the contention that the instrument was not only insufficiently stamped but suffers from material alteration since the year mentioned thereupon i.e. 1987 2 was changed to 1997, but in the light of the fact, brought on record, that the stamp paper itself was purchased by the defendant; his signatures appeared on two of the stamps and one at below the stamps and there was no addition or deletion in the other date i.e. 30.8.1997 mentioned on the pronote, the Courts below rightly and safely concluded that the plaintiff has satisfactorily explained that the alteration is not such that materially affect his case or that the instrument is insufficiently stamped. Even except his bald statement, no cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the appellant in support of his allegations of forgery and fraud. The defendant- appellant was also found not truthful, taking contradictory pleas which suits him. Thus, the Courts below rightly directed the appellant-defendant to make the payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.31,200/- within three months failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to recover future interest @ 6% per annum. The findings arrived at by both the courts below need no interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE January 14,2009 Jiten