IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 969 of 2007 Date of Decision : August 10, 2009 Kamal Netar Sharma alias Sonu Sharma ....Appellant Versus Roshan Lal and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. S.N.Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1. T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral) Suit for recovery filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 was decreed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh, on January 22, 2004, which judgment and decree was upheld by learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, on March 10, 2006 in the first appeal filed by the defendant-appellant, who is now before this Court in the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the receipt in question was a forged and fabricated document. In order to prove that the appellant had taken a loan of Rs.1,20,000/- vide receipt Ex.P1 on 29.7.1997, respondent No.1 had examined Anuvind Kumar as PW1 besides himself stepping into the R.S.A. No. 969 of 2007 -2- witness box as PW2. Aforementioned Anuvind Kumar was a marginal witness of receipt Ex.P1. Both of them deposed before the learned trial Court that upon receiving Rs.1,20,000/- in cash, the appellant had put his signatures on the receipt after going through its contents and as a token of its correctness. The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 were found to inspire full confidence by the learned Courts below. On the other hand, the appellant, while stepping into the witness box, stated that the receipt in question was forged and fabricated document. It was incumbent upon him to plead all these facts in the written statement and then to lead evidence to prove the elements of forgery and fabrication. However, in his written statement, he did not give any detail of alleged forgery. Moreover, he did not bring on record even an iota of evidence to establish that the receipt Ex.P1 was nothing but a forged document. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant also submitted that Smt.Geetanjli Garg, wife of respondent No.1 had also filed a suit for recovery of certain amount from the appellant and she relied upon a similar receipt in her suit as the one claimed by respondent No.1 in the present suit. The said suit filed by Smt.Geetanjli Garg was dismissed by the learned lower Court. Therefore, no reliance could be placed upon receipt Ex.P1. The decision in the suit filed by Smt.Geetanjli Garg was on the basis of the evidence led by her in her suit. That finding cannot be imported in the present suit, which had been filed by her husband Roshan Lal-respondent No.1. R.S.A. No. 969 of 2007 -3- The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by learned Courts below cannot be interfered with in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions, as claimed by the appellant, arises for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 10, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1