IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. Nos. 3545-C & 3546-C of 2009 and RSA No. 1188 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.3.2009 Mohar Singh … Applicant- Appellant. Versus. Des Raj … Respondent THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the applicant- appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C. M. Nos. 3545-C of 2009: For the cause shown in the application, the delay of 63 days in making good the deficiency in court-fee is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. C.M. No. 3546-C of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 21 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 1188 of 2009: The present appellant, Mohar Singh, was the defendant in the suit for recovery preferred against him by plaintiff, Des Raj, for recovery of Rs.7,34,600/- (Rs.5,47,500/- as principal and Rs.1,87,100/- as interest). In the suit, plaintiff claimed that on 19.11.2003, defendant Mohar Singh borrowed from him an amount of Rs.5,47,500/- agreeing to pay the same with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensem. In lieu of the said loan, a pronote and receipt was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which was scribed by Tarsem Kumar and attested by Balour Singh, witnesses, and read over to the defendant who after admitting it to be correct thumb-marked the same. However, the defendant failed to return the loan amount to or to pay the interest thereon despite numerous requests made by the plaintiff and this led to filing of present suit by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 7,34,600/- as mentioned above. Upon RSA No. 1188 of 2009 -2- notice of the suit, defendant filed written statement wherein he alleged that the pronote and receipt are false and fabricated documents, prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with the witnesses. He rather alleged that he himself and through his brother used to sell his agriculture produce through the commission agency of M/s Des Raj Surinder Kumar, Bhagta Bhai Ka. He and his brother along with son Amarjit Singh had sold the produce of the value of Rs.12,80,499/- from October, 2003 to 21.4.2005 and the said amount is lying deposited with the said firm which is owned by father of the plaintiff. In this context, he stated that he and his brother had also filed suit for recovery of Rs.15,87,795/- against the plaintiff and his son. He (defendant) did not require such a heavy amount and the plaintiff had no capacity to lend such heavy amount. Defendant alleged that plaintiff had not shown the amount of pronote in his account-books and further did not show the said amount in his income-tax return. Defendant further alleged that the pronote and receipt have been prepared by the plaintiff so as to pressurize them. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 23.5.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.5,94,275/- (Rs.5,47,500/- as principal amount and Rs. 46775/- were calculated as interest on the amount from the execution of pronote till the filing of suit at the rate of 6 per cent along with pendente-lite and future interest at the same rate) till realization of the decretal amount. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2008 but with modification in the judgment and decree of the trial Court restricting the interest, pendente lite and future only on the principal sum of Rs.5,47,500/-. Defendant has now preferred the present second appeal impugning the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The stand of the defendant was that the said pronote and receipt are forged one. But he failed to substantiate the same by leading any cogent evidence in the shape of expert witness to prove that the thumb-impressions appearing on the aforesaid documents are not of him. Even nothing has been shown that any complaint or FIR was made by the defendant against the plaintiff. Except his own bald statement, nothing was produced by him to prove the plea of fraud. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence RSA No. 1188 of 2009 -3- adduced by the parties have concurrently held that the plea of the defendant that the pronote and receipt so produced by the plaintiff are forged and fabricated documents, is not correct and once thumb-impressions having been proved, it was for him to show as to under what circumstances he had thumb-marked the documents in question. It is not the case of the defendant that the thumb impressions were obtained on blank pronote and receipt. The plaintiff in his cross-examination has stated that the cash was lying at his home. The Courts below have observed that by non-showing of the amount of pronote in the income-tax return of the firm or non-filing of personal income-tax return by the plaintiff, will not exonerate the defendant of his liability by saying that no loan was advanced to him by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was not required to prove each and every need of the defendant. It has thus, been held on the basis of evidence produced by the plaintiff in the shape of attesting witness and scribe coupled with his own testimony, that the plaintiff has been able to successfully prove the advancement of loan and due execution of pronote and receipt by the defendant; while the defendant has miserably failed to prove the forgery of the said pronote and receipt. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 20, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE