RSA No.3129 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3129 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 1, 2011 Bahadar Singh .....Appellant v. Lachhman Das .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8609-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.8608-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 195 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.3129 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.8.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 passed by the then learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa, decreeing the suit filed by respondent- plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,92,000/- alongwith interest was modified to the extent that respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to recover interest upon the amount of Rs.2 lacs @ 6% per annum from the date of RSA No.3129 of 2011(O&M) -2- advancement of loan till recovery. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for recovery on the basis of pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2. Respondent-plaintiff has been able to prove execution of pronote Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 by examining witnesses of the said pronote and receipt. Appellant-defendant has failed to prove his plea that he used to sell his agricultural produce to a commission agency of one Arjan Dass, who got his thumb impressions on the said document. Respondent-plaintiff also examined finger print expert, who compared disputed thumb impressions of appellant-defendant on the pronote and receipt with his admitted thumb impressions and came to the conclusion that the thumb impressions are that of appellant only. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 1.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge